Norman & Burt of Burgess Hill Shipbuilding at West Itchenor Warehouse at No. 4 Winding Street, Hastings Midhurst North Mill Turnpikes to Steyning, Henfield and Shoreham

ISSUE 40 Price £4.25 2010 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

Journal of the Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society

FORTY 2010

CONTENTS Page NORMAN & BURT OF BURGESS HILL— Local Builders of Renown Frederic M. Avery 2

SHIPBUILDING AT WEST ITCHENOR Philip McDougall 7

WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT No. 4 WINDING STREET, HASTINGS Ron Martin 11

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY RECONSTRUCTION OF MIDHURST NORTH MILL Alan H. J. Green 19

TURNPIKES TO STEYNING, HENFIELD AND SHOREHAM Brian Austen 24

Publications 40

Cover illustration—Old Shoreham Toll Bridge c.1905 (Marlipins Museum, Shoreham‐by‐Sea)

Edited by Dr. Brian Austen, 1 Mercedes Cottages, St. John’s Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 4EH (tel. 01444 413845, email [email protected]). Design and layout by Alan Durden. The Editor would be interested to hear from prospective contributors of articles of any length. Shorter notices can be included in the Society’s Newsletter which is issued four times a year.

The annual subscription to the Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society is £10 payable on 1 April. Life membership is available at fifteen times the annual subscription. Members are entitled to copies of the Sussex Industrial History and the Newsletters without further charge.

Membership enquiries to the Hon. Secretary, R.G. Martin, 42 Falmer Avenue, Saltdean, Brighton BN2 8FG (tel. 01273 271330, email [email protected]). Website: www.sussexias.co.uk

ISSN 0263 5151 © SIAS on behalf of the contributors

1 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

NORMAN & BURT OF BURGESS Simeon’s grandparents, Richard and Elizabeth HILL—Local Builders of Renown Norman, built the family fortunes at the Chailey brick, tile and pottery works which they inherited in Frederic M. Avery 1792, but started in the trade earlier in Burgess Hill about 1735. Simeon’s father, William, continued the works which passed to his older sons Richard and The Birth and Growth of the Firm Nathan. Simeon learnt his trade there as a carpenter In 1862 Simeon Norman (Fig. 1) started a building journeyman. In 1856 Simeon married Catherine business in Burgess Hill from premises in London Burt, daughter of Henry and Elizabeth Burt of Road just south of the “Brewer’s Arms” public house Ditchling. The factor that influenced Simeon to (Fig. 3). He was the youngest of eleven children and establish his business may have been the building of his father was William Norman of Chailey whose the parish church of St. John the Evangelist, Burgess first wife was Mary Avery (1780‐1815), of Fowles Hill which by 1861 was under construction by Farm, St. John’s Common in Clayton parish. They builder John Ellis of Chichester. The following year had three children before Mary died at the young he established his local building business to fill a age of 35. William’s second marriage was to Barbara perceived “gap in the market”. In 1864, Simeon Leaney (1796‐1867) and they had one daughter and invited his young brother‐in‐law, Henry Burt (1850‐ seven sons, the youngest being Simeon, founder of 1922), then aged fourteen, to join the firm and later the business, who was born on 3 December 1833. he became a partner in the business (Fig. 2).

Fig.1 Simeon Norman (1833‐ 1890), founder of the business

Fig.2 Henry Burt (1850‐1922), brother‐in‐law and partner of Simeon Norman Fig.3 Works in London Road, Burgess Hill, identified as 211 on the 1874 O.S. map 2 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

The Burgess Hill Gas Company was formed in 1866 and the contract for the buildings on the site was awarded to Simeon Norman. In later life Simeon became the Honorary Secretary of the Gas Company and later the Water Company also. Simeon was involved with several local undertakings and he was a keen archaeologist, artist and photographer, the first in Burgess Hill, who taught the latter two subjects at Madame Emily Temple’s Institute, formerly St. John’s Institute and now known as the “Park Centre”. This building was probably the first Fig.5 Stonemasons’ Yard on the western side of London major contract undertaken by Simeon and was Road completed in 1873. Two years later, the Strict Baptist Chapel, Park Road, (where Magnus Volk was business with Henry Burt. The firm now had a married) was built by Simeon, followed in 1882 by masonry works, a blacksmith’s shop, carpentry and the Congregational Church, now known as All joinery workshops, undertook painting and Saints United Reformed Church, Junction Road (Fig. decorating and even traded as a funeral director 4). All three of these buildings of distinction still (Fig. 5). It comprised the largest building firm in the stand witness to his exceptional ability. district. The premises eventually expanded to the eastern side of London Road, formerly part of Norman’s pottery works (Fig. 6).

Fig.4 Congregational Church, now All Saints Church Fig.6 Blacksmiths and paint stores on the eastern side of (URC), in Junction Road, Burgess Hill London Road

When Simeon died on 21 February 1890 at the age of In the mid 1890s Simeon Henry built a family house 56, he was buried in St. John’s churchyard. No for himself called “Latchetts” in Church Road, next fewer than 2,000 mourners, including 100 of his to the former Baptist Chapel, where Peacock’s store employees, attended his funeral , which was a fitting stands today. His house was constructed by some of tribute to such a prominent and respected person. A the very best local craftsmen, using good quality decorated carved oak pulpit was dedicated to his materials. Even some of the furniture was produced memory in 1891. Catherine, his widow, died at the at the works in London Road and the ornaments, age of 58 in 1893, leaving six daughters and three together with a grandfather clock, were also crafted sons. there. The rear of the house overlooked a large lawn on two levels, connected by brick steps. A fairly Into the Twentieth Century good photographic record of the house and its After Simeon’s death Henry Burt was able to interior exists, thanks to Simeon Henry’s son Simeon continue the business with Simeon Henry Norman John Norman. He took photographs long before the (Simeon’s eldest son) until Henry retired. In 1894 house was demolished in 1970 to make way for the the firm was registered as Norman & Burt Ltd. development of Burgess Hill’s new town centre, Simeon Henry Norman (1863‐1934) was later joined completed in 1972. During the 1930s Simeon John by his two younger brothers, Francis William (1873‐ had authorised Norman & Burt to build a large 1952) and Cecil Thomas (1876‐1952), who ran the detached house in Silverdale Road for himself,

3 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

named “Little Latchets”, which still stands as a Lichfield, Rochester and Southwark Cathedrals, lasting monument to quality. Strangers Hall, Norwich, Chelsea Old Church, St. Giles Cripplegate, Herstmonceux Castle and In 1909 Henry Burt became Chairman of the Burgess Sandringham Church. Also in the archive there is a Hill Urban District Council and planted trees in the record of the firm’s work in the effigies carved for London Road to commemorate his term of office. the south front of Chichester Cathedral, above a The logo which the Burgess Hill Local History window in the cloisters. Society uses came from a plaque above the door of his house, known as “Sandown Villa” in London They also carried out significant work abroad. This Road. He died in 1922 and was buried in St. included the New English Church in Delhi, the Andrew’s churchyard with his wife Mary, who had University Mission Church, Calcutta, church work died four years earlier. Henry’s son, Henry Samuel in Mexico City for Lord Cowdray and St. Mark’s Burt who married Nora Lawrence Berry, also Church, Philadelphia. became a director of the firm but sadly died soon Norman & Burt’s work at Temple Newsam, Leeds after his father at the young age of 41 in 1923. Henry deserves a special mention. A replacement oak Samuel and Nora lived in a large mock Tudor house staircase designed by the architect Charles Emar in Gloucester Road, built by Norman & Burt, given Kempe (of Old Place, Lindfield) was made by to them as a wedding present by the other directors Norman & Burt and installed at Temple Newsam in 1908. (Fig. 7). This was a Tudor house (the birthplace of After Simeon Henry Norman died in 1934 two of his Henry, Lord Darnley) with extensive improvements sons, Simeon John and Cecil Roberts became in the Victorian period when it was owned by the directors of the firm. Cecil Roberts, also known as Hon. Mrs Emily Charlotte Meynell Ingram and her “Bob” or “Bobs” Norman started his own business niece, Lady Mary Meynell. Work was designed by as a builder and decorator with offices situated at the architects Geoffrey Bodley, Edwin Lutyens, Mill Road, Burgess Hill. One of his major contracts Charles Emar Kempe and Walter Tower (partners). in 1951 was the retiling of St. John’s Church steeple, The improvements involved building a new western which took several months to complete. end to the house with a dining room and staircase which improved the proportions of the property. In Demand at Home and Abroad Norman & Burt had previously made an oak staircase for the Earl of Portsmouth at Hurstbourne The relentless expansion of Burgess Hill in the early Park, Hampshire, and the one at Temple Newsam, twentieth century brought a steady flow of work for constructed on site in sections, was made in the Norman & Burt. In addition to local building workshop by P. J. Court and W. Court in 1894. It contracts previously mentioned, others were the was based on a Tudor staircase at Slaugham Place War Memorial, Salvation Army Citadel, Women’s Institute (now Theatre Club premises), St. Wilfrid’s Roman Catholic Church, St. Edward’s Church, St. Andrew’s Church, the “Dene” (now demolished), the Isolation Hospital, Goddards Green, the Sidney West Boxing Hall (also recently demolished), the renovation of Hammonds Place and several housing contracts, the earliest being situated in Silverdale Fig.7 Staircase at Road, the most recent being in Norman Road. Temple The firm’s archives, some still in family hands, Newsam others in the safe custody of West Sussex Record House, Office, bear witness to the far reach of their Leeds, reputation. At least fifty other major projects were designed by Kempe and carried out in various buildings within fifty miles of executed Burgess Hill to churches, colleges, hospitals, stately 1894‐1897 homes and castles in the period after World War II and are photographically recorded. Prestigious contracts in Britain included work at Canterbury, Chichester, Winchester, Newcastle, Chester,

4 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

and, when the house was demolished, it was The Great Fire of London destroyed the original installed at the Star Hotel, Lewes, which became the church in 1666, but a new church designed by Sir Town Hall in 1893. Some features of the staircase Christopher Wren in 1670 was dedicated on 19 were taken from a famous one at Herstmonceux December 1675. Once more, alas, in December 1940 Castle. Today Temple Newsam is owned by Leeds the church was destroyed during an air raid, and ten City Council and is open to the public, so the years later Norman & Burt were reconstructing the staircase can be viewed. church to Wren’s original design. When work recommenced in 1956, the architect in charge was Mr. W. Godfrey Allen and the general foreman was Mr. G. Pennells. The contract was completed in

eighteen months which is thought to be a record for a building of such complexity and prestige. On 19 December 1957, during the re‐dedication service, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh unveiled a Fig.8 St. Bride’s plaque to commemorate the work. Mr. G. Pennells Church, London; and Mr. O.R.D. Wallis (director) were presented to interior showing the reredos Her Majesty, and the Bishop of London conducted the service which was held on the same day as the original ceremony of Sir Christopher Wren’s church.

The End of the Firm and the Rescue of its Archives In the early 1970s, despite more than a century of successful business, Norman & Burt ceased trading under the old family name. The 1950s and 1960s had brought in dramatic changes in the materials A Remarkable Project: St. Bride’s Church, and methods of construction, emphasising plain exteriors and flush interiors. Not only were the London skills of yesteryear no longer in vogue but were The most prestigious building work ever becoming increasingly unaffordable. The Norman & undertaken by Norman & Burt was the rebuilding of Burt workforce were craftsmen who were now St. Bride’s Church, Fleet Street, (Fig. 8) where about serving a dwindling specialist market. In 1973, they 50 employees were actually on site every day were taken over by a firm known as Anston throughout the contract which began in 1950. The Holdings Ltd, and Messrs Ovenden and Holden work had to be stopped for five years for were delegated to carry on as directors, supervising archaeological investigation when the remains of a more than 40 employees. With such a rich history in Roman temple, pieces of a Saxon font and the the building contracting industry, it was with great foundations of a Norman curfew bell tower were regret that the Board of Directors decided to close found. the firm on 31 May 1974. The premises remained derelict for at least two years which allowed, The history of the church dates back to Henry II’s unfortunately, some of the records to go astray. The reign (1154‐1189) and it became the Guild of St. majority were however rescued and deposited with Bride in 1375 in Edward III’s reign, where a rectory the West Sussex Record Office at Chichester. was administered by Westminster. St. Bride or St. Bridget refers to the Abbess of Kildare, an Irish saint Some Reminiscences of the Firm of the sixth century. In 1500 William Caxton’s printing press was taken from Westminster Abbey The meetings of the Burgess Hill Local History and installed in the rectory of St. Bride’s, the start of Society are a natural setting for local people to the subsequent establishment of the “popular press” reminisce about the town as it used to be. As some in Fleet Street. In addition to the Roman, Saxon and recall, one of the regular features of Norman & Burt, Norman remains, nearly 5,000 burials were found was the sounding of the works’ extremely loud within the church walls in seven sealed vaults. klaxon (steam hooter) which reverberated all round Burgess Hill at the start and end of the working day

5 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

and for lunch at 1 o’clock. So accurate was the faint‐hearted and most workmen acquired a natural timing that people could set their own clocks to the resistance to minor ailments. Not surprisingly, the sound of the hooter. The only other hooters in the skin on a bricklayer’s hands eventually resembled an town to compete were Ernest Hole’s Agricultural elephant’s hide. Even those who worked in the Engineers in the centre of the town, the Keymer masonry yard used hand‐operated mechanical hoists Brick and Tile Works on the other side of the town to manoeuvre large blocks of stone onto the circular and a lesser but positive response was also heard saw bench and by the end of the day were covered from the town’s laundry in Royal George Road. from head to foot in fine dust. Not a very pleasant Eventually, the law on noise pollution stopped these experience when in all weathers the ride home on hooters sounding several years ago, to the relief of their bicycles finally ended their working day. The those living within earshot. tin bath full of hot soapy water was a welcome sight. Popular events were the cricket matches. Norman & APPENDIX Burt’s team played against many other local businesses including the Keymer Brick & Tile Works List of partners and (after 1894) directors of who had their own pitch near Inholmes Mansion at Norman & Burt the heart of the brickworks in Cants Lane. From 1862 Simeon Norman (1833‐90) Founder time to time the employees of Norman & Burt and the directors met socially to celebrate various special 1864 Henry Burt (1850‐1922) joined the firm at occasions with a three‐course dinner followed by the age of 14 to assist Simeon Norman local entertainers, usually held at one of the local After 1890 Simeon Henry Norman (1863‐1934) hostelries or community halls. The firm rewarded succeeded his father and Henry Burt long‐service employees, and those who had worked became his partner over 50 years received a clock and a presentation plaque. The workforce was expected to be loyal to 1894 The firm became Norman & Burt Ltd. the firm but many families were helped when they The directors were Henry Burt and the fell upon hard times. Almost every family in the three brothers Simeon Henry, Francis town, more than fifty years ago, had at least one son William (1873‐1952) and Cecil Thomas who worked for Norman & Burt, or knew someone Norman (1876‐1952) who had worked there. 1903 The directors were Simeon Henry, The author’s father was a Norman & Burt employee Francis William and Cecil Thomas and his own memories relate to times when, as a Norman together with Henry Samuel boy, he accompanied him on various jobs. After Burt (1882‐1923), Henry’s son building restrictions were lifted in 1948 several After 1923 The directors were Simeon Henry, jobbing works were being undertaken locally and Francis William and Cecil Norman and teams of two or three workmen were packing two‐ Cecil Roberts Norman, son of Simeon wheeled handcarts with various materials to carry Henry out minor works of repair. Scaffolding then comprised long pine poles lashed together with wire After 1930 As in 1923 with the addition of Simeon binding, delivered by open‐backed lorries. In winter John Norman (1909‐1987) Simeon these were reluctant to start without hot cloths being Henry’s other son placed around the carburettor. Even with constant After 1945 Owen Rollo Davey Wallis, Arthur winding of the starting handle some lorries could Holden, R.E. Ovenden, Lt. Col. A.H. take half an hour to become mobile. Trucks with Tovey, John Gaston, Maurice E. Bower, open backs carried workmen to their workplace on Frederick C. McMahon makeshift bench seats made from scaffolding boards; corrugated iron half‐round shelters were A more detailed history of Norman & Burt is sometimes used during inclement weather. In those contained in the author’s work under the same title days, a shower of rain or snow never interrupted published by the Burgess Hill Local History Society. work and one of the worst jobs was laying drains or This 40‐page publication (Occasional Paper 2) is foundation bricks at the bottom of a trench available from Zillah Birch of 56, Potters Lane, surrounded by clay and slush in freezing cold, Burgess Hill RH15 9JS (tel. 01444 236193) price £6 windy weather. The building trade was not for the plus £2 post & packing.

6 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

low lands by the flux of the sea between it and SHIPBUILDING AT WEST Portsmouth in and about the islands of Hailing [sic] ITCHENOR and Selsey. But all passages into the same from the seaward being covered by the East Burroughs, the Philip MacDougall dangerous rocks called the Oares and the sands of the Horse; there is no room among them for any During the eighteenth and the early years of the improvement for the navy, nor did there appear to be nineteenth century, the small waterside village of any place fitting to build a ship of the 4th rate with any West Itchenor acquired some importance as a of the havens of those mentioned islands upon the enquiry which was made thereof about four years shipbuilding centre. The work of shipbuilding was since by your own directions.3 not a constant process, the village having developed a particular niche in the construction of warships Nevertheless, despite these reservations, West during periods of conflict. It was at such times that Itchenor was to launch at least one vessel larger than the government’s own dockyards were so that which Dummer had considered the area overburdened that new construction work was ‘fitting’. This was not until 1785 when the 44‐gun contracted out to merchants in possession of suitable Chichester was launched. Although a fifth rate, her facilities. general dimensions were well in excess of a typical fourth rate of the time in which Dummer was West Itchenor, which lies alongside the enclosed writing. waters of Chichester Harbour, is approximately six miles south‐east of Chichester. More important, The earliest warships to be constructed at West from the point of view of shipbuilding, was the Itchenor were the Hornet and Arundel, both village’s relative proximity to Portsmouth, being constructed during the War of Austrian Succession little more than ten miles west of this major naval‐ (1740‐48). In making this statement, I am not industrial complex. As such, warships built at West ignoring remarks made by Jill Dickin in her brief Itchenor could be easily inspected by officers account of the village. Here she states that land in dispatched from the naval dockyard, and were West Itchenor had been devoted to shipbuilding easily brought round to Portsmouth for completion. since the early seventeenth century with a warship A further advantage of the yard at West Itchenor having been built at the time of the Tudors. While was its proximity to the oak woodlands of Sussex. small boats may well have been built at West This was the most prized of all timbers for Itchenor from fairly early times, doubts must exist as shipbuilding, with the Navy Board often forcing to the construction of a Tudor warship.4 contractors responsible for the purchase of timber to The shipbuilding yard itself stood on the foreshore 1 seek out ‘good, Sussex oak’. Apart from individual where the present day West Itchenor sailing club is hedgerow oaks, the village was close to the great located. The undertaking however, was not as woodland estates of Stansted and Goodwood. impressive as it might sound. The yard itself That West Itchenor developed a small shipbuilding required little more than a slipway, saw pits and industry was something that ran against the odds. areas set aside for the storage of timber and other Such a possibility had been more or less dismissed at essential items. In addition, office space would also the end of the seventeenth century. In July 1698, be required, together with nearby housing for those Edmund Dummer, Surveyor of the Navy, carried employed in the shipyard. out a detailed study of the south coast, his purpose Regarding that most essential element, the slipway, being that of locating a site for either a new this was little more than an entrenchment in the dockyard or areas that could be utilised for warship ground that approximated the dimensions of the 2 construction. Along the entire Sussex coastline he ship under construction. The entrenchment would found little that enthused him. Basically, he terminate at the water’s edge and, for purposes of dismissed the already existing ports of Shoreham, launching the ship, would have a slope of Newhaven and Arundel, indicating these to have approximately six degrees. Within the slipway, a narrow and hazardous entrances that were liable to number of oak beams would be placed lengthways silting. As for Chichester Harbour, of which West across the entrenchment and it was upon these that Itchenor was a part, Dummer declared: the keel of the ship would be laid. We passed by Chichester observing only that there are Other facilities were just as basic. Oak, the primary many small currents of fresh water breaking into the

7 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

building material, was brought to the yard in an would have been an office for the merchant builder uncut state and simply stored in an unenclosed area. and his representative. In addition, and only when a If carefully arranged, it could continue to season warship was under construction, there would have prior to it being cut and re‐stored nearer to where been an overseer appointed by the Navy Board. It the ship was being built. As for the process of was the Navy Board that would have both issued cutting the timbers, especially the planks that lined the contract and provided plans for the vessel under the sides of the ship, these were cut by sawyers construction. To ensure that everything proceeded working a two‐man saw. For this operation, a saw smoothly, they also appointed one of their own pit, of which two or three might have been necessary artificers, an experienced shipwright from the at West Itchenor, was also required. With a piece of dockyard at Portsmouth. His main task was to timber placed across the pit, and supported by check the quality of the work and refer any beams, one man would stand in the pit, and another difficulties to his own senior officer at Portsmouth. above. As can be imagined, the daily routine was One other essential facility, although this might be extremely arduous. A normal working day was 6.00 placed in the loft of another building, possibly one of am until 6.00 pm (with an hour and a half for lunch), the offices, was that of a large floor area that could the accumulated monotony and an undoubted thirst be used for laying down the full‐scale plan of any broken by each man usually being allowed ship under construction. From this plan, moulds, or quantities of strong beer (in the royal dockyards as templates, could be cut and the necessary timbers much as eight pints). Drunkenness, as a result, was accordingly shaped. not uncommon! The paucity of buildings required at the building Offices, which did not need to be particularly yard was a simple reflection of the limited nature of permanent, were required for both the officers of the the work that was expected to be undertaken in the yard and their clerical staff. Among the former construction of a warship. Only the hull was built

A naval warship of the 18th century and of a size not dissimilar in nature to those built at West Itchenor. Although this vessel has masts in situ, only the timber hull was usually constructed at the West Itchenor yard, with warships more normally taken to Portsmouth for the fitting of masts and other furnishings.

8 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

within the yard. Once the frame had been set up, were approximately ten artificers, presumably a mix planked and caulked the vessel was launched on the of shipwrights, sawyers and labourers. Their first suitable tide. At that point, the vessel would be combined wage, collected by King from the Duke of towed round to Portsmouth dockyard for Richmond’s steward each month, was completion. Such items as masts, rigging and all approximately £20.6 deck furnishings were added at this stage. Work on the sloop appears to have begun in The first of the warships to be launched at West October 1781 and was to fully engage the work force Itchenor, Hornet, was a 10‐gun sloop. Designed by of the shipyard until March 1783. Unlike ships built Richard Acworth of the Navy Board, she was one of for the navy, the sloop was to be both launched and fifteen vessels of the ‘Swallow’ class. All, as it completed at West Itchenor. That this was possible happens, were built in smaller merchant yards.5 The was due to the sloop being a relatively small vessel. order for this vessel was made on 11 August 1744 For this reason, internal deck furnishing could be with the keel laid during September. She was manufactured and fitted by house carpenters eventually launched on 3 August 1745. Her employed within the yard while masting and constructor at West Itchenor was Chitty and rigging could be undertaken by the crew who Quallett. Once launched she was taken to would eventually sail her. Portsmouth for completion. Apart from the regular sums presented to John King The second vessel of this wartime period, Arundel, for payment of the workforce, the Goodwood was a considerably larger vessel, being a sixth rate of accounts also list all other expenditures associated 24‐guns. Ordered on 3 October 1745, the keel was with the vessel. In particular, a number of local laid that same month, the building slip at West merchants were paid for supplying various items, Itchenor having been empty for about eight weeks. these payments including £3 2s 11d to Stephen Few problems appear to have occurred in her Colson for the supply of clapboards, £47 to Wright construction with Arundel launched on 23 November and Prickett for ballast and £35 3s 8d to Cox and 1746. Jellicoe for anchors. In addition, other payments It seems likely that shipbuilding at West Itchenor were made to J. Colvill for the supply of mast continued during the years that followed, with the timbers, Thomas Andrews for ironmongery and yard available for lease to merchants with a contract Norris and King for oakum and rosin. These last to construct a vessel. However, there is no evidence two items were used for the caulking of seams and of further naval shipbuilding until the end of the protection of the hull prior to the vessel being American Revolutionary War (1774‐1782). Prior to launched into the waters of the harbour. As regards that time however, the shipyard had come into the the most expensive item, this was the sum of £372 hands of the Duke of Richmond. This was during paid to Edward Evans for oak timber, this being cut the early 1770s. At the time, the Duke of Richmond from woodlands in the Lavant area. was expanding his estate at Goodwood and had One further expenditure noted in the account books made several land purchases in the Chichester was £5 5s 0d, this being for the launch feast of the Harbour area, acquiring properties in both Birdham sloop. As for the launch itself, this was attended by and West Wittering. His interest in West Itchenor the Duke of Richmond who duly named the vessel, appears to have been specifically to develop his Goodwood. enthusiasm in yachting. Having purchased 300 The year following completion of Goodwood, the acres of land at West Itchenor he built a house to yard at West Itchenor was being leased to Caleb which a permanently employed staff was attached. Crookenden and Company for an annual rent of £2 The shipyard could be used to build and repair his 7s 2d. Already the company had secured a wartime yachts while also being available to lease out to contract with the Admiralty to build a 44‐gun ship those who might also wish to use it for the that was to be named Chichester. She was to be the constructing of new vessels. largest ship built at West Itchenor and was launched The first major task to which the newly purchased on 10 March 1785. A second contract, this time for a ship yard was directed was that of constructing a vessel to be built for the East India Company, was sloop for the personal use of the Duke of Richmond. also secured by Caleb Crookenden, this resulting in To oversee completion of this new vessel, John King the launch of the 938‐ton Hartwell in February 1787. was appointed as yard manager. Under his charge A description of this event and the subsequent

9 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

launch ball held at the Dolphin in Chichester contract in June 1805 to built a 36‐gun frigate. This appeared in the Hampshire Chronicle of 12 February was rather a unique contract as the vessel, 1787. eventually named Pyramus, was to be based on the lines of a French frigate, Belle Poule, captured in Unfortunately, the company was unable to secure 1780. However, despite the keel of this vessel being any further work, resulting in Caleb Crookenden, laid at West Itchenor in April 1806, she was not to be who was by then in association with Taylor and launched at the yard. Instead, building was to be Smith, having to auction various items that they had discontinued with the cut frames and other items accumulated in the yard. This account appeared in taken to the dockyard at Portsmouth where the keel the Hampshire Chronicle of 3 December 1787: was re‐laid in November 1808.9 236 ends of prime oak timber, from 30‐60 feet; 8 ends of sided timber; 180 square and 175 raking fences; 9 Thomas Kidwill retained his lease of the yard until ends of elm keel, 41 ends of fir timber; 11,000 of 13 inch 1808, presumably engaged in both the repair work nails, 7,600 of 18 inch, 10,400 of 21 inch, 6,200 of 24 and the construction of some smaller non‐naval inch, 3,400 of 27 inch and 600 of 30 inch; moulds for an vessels. In 1809, the lease of the yard had passed to East India man of 900 tons, and of vessels from 30 to a David Bundy while between 1810 and 1813 ship 300 tons; likewise for a 44 gun ship, and a 16 gun sloop; building and repair work was in the hands of a new three pairs of timber wheels; a boat; 2 steam kilns with leasee, Thomas Gibbs. However, the ending of the coppers and boilers; shores, stages, launches, blocks, war with France in 1814 brought an immediate sheaves and ropes; pit saws; odd iron and lead; a slump to the shipbuilding industry, with West quantity of posts, slats, firewood etc. etc. Itchenor unable to buck the trend. As a result, the A further lull in the activities of the yard followed, yard entered a period of terminal decline, with the with the Duke of Richmond finding no further Duke of Richmond unable to find a further leasee for shipbuilders prepared to lease the yard until 1808. the yard. As a result, the only work performed in However, the yard was certainly at work around the the yard directly related to the needs of Goodwood turn of the century, with construction work in House, with minor repairs being undertaken on progress upon an experimental vessel that made use vessels owned by the family. of a fore and aft schooner rig, so giving her five masts. Launched in 1800, she was named Transit. Notes and References 7 No further work was found for the yard until 1808. 1. Navy Board contracts, The National Archives, passim. However, it was during this particular period that a See also V.C.H. ii, 291, 299, 313. brief description of West Itchenor and its 2. For additional information on Dummer see my entry shipbuilding yard appeared in a London publication on Dummer in the New Dictionary of National Biography The Gentleman’s Magazine: (2004). The village consists of two public houses and a few 3. British Library, Sloane 3233, f.14. cottages near the sea. The Duke of Richmond has a 4. Jill Dickin, Chichester Harbour: the thirteen villages neat house and pleasure grounds adjoining the street, (Chichester Harbour Conservancy, n.d.). Dickin provides with a hot bath on the shore. A few years previous the no evidence as to the source for statements regarding Belvidere and the ill‐fated Hartswell Indiamen were early shipbuilding at West Itchenor. The reference to a built here; and about three years ago a vessel on a new Tudor warship may be no more than hearsay. construction was built here; but nothing has been 5. Only two other ‘Swallow’ class sloops were built in 8 attempted since. Sussex, these were Dispatch and Hound, both built by Between 1808 and 1813 there was a sudden flurry of Stow and Bartlett at Shoreham. activity with a number of different builders 6. WSRO, Goodwood Papers, 240. It is from the monthly undertaking work there. Among them was Thomas payment of approximately £20 to the workforce that I Kidwill who, together with a Mr Greensword, and have estimated the approximate number employed. under contract to the Navy Board, built the 14‐gun At that time, the average wage of a shipwright was 2s 1d per day and that for a labourer 1s 1d. I also brig Richmond. The Order for this vessel was given assumed a six day working week. on 20 November 1811 with the keel laid in 7. WSAO, Q/DE/2/1. Land Tax records, West Itchenor. November of the following year. Richmond, one of the ‘Confounder’ class of brigs was launched in 8. WSAO Par 112/7/114 February 1806. The slipway was immediately back 9. Pyramus was eventually launched at Portsmouth on 22 in use, Kidwill and Greensword having acquired a January 1810.

10 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT No. 4 The building has been described as it was when surveyed in 2005. It has been subsequently altered WINDING STREET, HASTINGS during its conversion into residential accommodation. Ron Martin Description of building The site is located at grid reference TQ 8248 0956 at No. 4 Winding Street, Hastings and is at the rear General (east side) of and contiguous with No. 54 High The building is a warehouse type building of Street. This latter building is domestic in nature and substantial construction, with bare, fair‐faced brick throughout this article has been referred to as “No. walls internally, devoid of timber trim, apart from 54” and the building on No. 4 Winding Street has part of the ground and first storeys which had been been referred as “The Warehouse”. See the key plan recently lined out with boarding. It is eight bays below (Fig. 1). long, 19.35 m (63’6”) along the north elevation and The site is bounded on the north side by Post Office 7.39 m (24´3″) wide on the east elevation, the angle Passage, on the east side by Winding Street and on between the north and east walls being 102°. The the south side by a property occupied by Messrs. south boundary is not straight, as it abutted existing Trade Paints, Ltd., who do not appear to have a buildings, and the maximum width of the site, current street number and this is referred to as measured overall external walls, is 8.5 m (27′10″). “Trade Paints”. This property extends right through The building is three storeys high with a basement to High Street and at the west end was formally under the western part. The roof runs west to east known as No. 55 High Street, the building on this apart from the last two bays at the east end where site having been bombed in 1943 and not rebuilt. the roof runs south to north. In the east end of the This site is referred to as “No. 55” and is currently first and second storeys there are three smoke rooms occupied by a memorial garden. with vents over. At the south side of the ground floor there is a recessed loading bay at street level, The site falls approximately 1 m from west to east the ground floor level being about 1 m (3 ft) above and the difference in level between High Street and datum. Winding Street is approximately 1.4 m (5 ft). Vertical heights have been related to a datum being floor There is a continuous opening 3.2 m (10′6″) wide level at the south‐east corner of the loading bay. between “No. 54” and The Warehouse at all levels. This had been blocked up at second floor level with wooden studded framework. At each floor level the opening is spanned with a 5″ x 10″ rolled steel joist (RSJ) to support the floors. A second blank opening at basement level 2.36 m (7’9″) wide has a segmental brick arch over. Walls The walls generally are of brick laid in English bond, fair‐ faced internally. The north wall and the easternmost part of the south wall are 570 mm (1′10½″) thick at Fig.1 Key plan, showing the location of No. 4, Winding Street, Hastings

11 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

basement level stepping back 115 mm (4½″) at each There are wooden staircases between ground, first floor level; the east wall is 350 mm (1′1½″) thick for and second floors with no evidence of any original its full height and in all cases there is a 215 mm balustrades. There is also a short flight of steps at (8½″) parapet with moulded brick cornice. The the east end of the basement for access to the loading external face is of red bricks in Flemish bond but bay and also a removable flight from this level to the only a half‐brick thick. level of the loading bay platform. At basement level there are four recesses 1.29 m A lift had been inserted between basement and (4′3″) deep with segmental arches over, projecting second floors, but this had been removed before this beyond the external face under the pavement to survey was carried out, leaving the well open. It is carry pavement lights, which have been slabbed understood from the contractors that this was of over. recent design and was extended up through the roof, with a housing for the motor unit at the top. The south wall has been built up on an earlier existing wall and steps back at each floor level. Roof There is a curved set back to the wall at the The roof over The Warehouse has the ridge running southwest corner of the loading bay which suggests east to west and is supported on five softwood that this was the external corner of an earlier trusses which had originally 4″ x 9″ ties, 3″ x 6″ building, two storeys high. principal rafters and 3″ x 6″ struts. There is a single All the internal walls are of brick 215 mm (8½″); 3″ x 6″ purlin in each slope carrying 2″ x 4″ rafters. those to the smoke room being supported on steel The east end of the roof is hipped. Some work has joists and are not bonded into the external walls. been carried out recently to replace defective timber The walls of the central smoke room are heavily including replacing the truss ties with double steel encrusted with a tarry deposit, and the two outer channels. ones less so; the south wall of the southern one The roof over the smoke rooms has the ridge being almost clean. running north to south and is a simple close couple There are iron hanging rails in all smoke rooms at construction with 2″ x 4″ rafters and ties, alternating two levels. with ¾″ diameter iron rods. Three smoke vents with louvres front and back are framed into the roof with Floors 2″ x 6″ trimmers. These were originally covered with The floors of the smoke rooms and one bay to the matchboarding but have been replaced with replicas west are constructed of brick jack arches and filler covered with sheet lead. joists (see Glossary). The smoke room floors are All the valley and parapet gutter are lead lined and finished with brick‐laid‐flat paving and the area to the roofs are covered with Welsh slates, countess the west of them is finished with cement and sand sized, (see Glossary) with clay ridge and hip tiles. paving and has a drainage channel running south to north. There is no floor at second‐floor level in the Doors smoke rooms, these being open from first floor level There is one pair of double doors on the north side, up to the roof. with a transom and top light, divided into small All the other floors have plain edged timber panes. The doors to the smoke rooms at first floor boarding on 3″ x 10″ softwood joists at 380 mm (1′3″) level are no longer extant and were probably steel; centres, spanning north to south. These bear on 4″ x there is part of the iron frame to the southern one 3″ wooden wall plates, where there is an offset in the still extant. external walls and on to a central 5″ x 10″ RSJ, At the edge of the loading bay platform there is a fishplated together over the three supporting wooden roller shutter 3.05 m (10′0″) wide with columns, which extend from basement to second wooden frames and supporting posts. The panels at floor level. The columns are 5″ diameter cast iron each side are filled with matchboarding on softwood with Doric capitals and bases. studs. Under the loading bay platform there is a The east end bay of the second floor is similar to the pair of dwarf doors giving access to the basement above, apart from the direction of the joist which is from street level and the floor of the platform opens east to west and these bear on to a recently inserted in two leaves to provide headroom. The loading bay 5″ x 10″ RSJ at their west end. is closed at the street elevation with a recent electric‐

12 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

powered steel roller shutter. The opening is Rubie was born in 1836 in Bermondsey, London and spanned by a 6″ x 12″ RSJ at the rear with a 6″ x 12″ died in 1922. The Rubie family presumably ceased wooden lintel at the front. to be actively associated with the shop with the demise of Edward, although the shop continued to At the north side of the east elevation there is a pair have the name sign of “George Ruby”, was trading of wooden‐framed, ledged and braced doors located as a “Wholesale grocer and tea merchant” and at ground floor level and with a fixed light over. occupied by various grocers. The firm finally closed The opening appears to have been cut into the wall in19692 when Trade Paints purchased the site.3 and the brickwork under this door is recent and is laid in stretcher bond. A map of 1852/3 4 and the 1:1250 OS map of 1873 5 shows the site of No. 4 Winding Street and the Windows adjacent site of “Trade Paints” as occupied by All the windows along the north side at all levels are various small buildings with open areas, which bear softwood casements with one transom and are no relation to the present buildings on the site. The divided into small panes with heavy glazing bars. street directories up to 1884 for Winding Street and The top lights are top hung and the bottom ones are Post Office Passage do not give any useful indication fixed. The windows have rebated reveals, a stone about who occupied the site. projecting sill and a three‐piece lintel with central An 1885‐86 Directory 6 lists Nos. 6‐7 Winding Street projecting keystone and outer members, with as occupied by “Rubies Grocery Stores” and this is skewbacks. The windows generally have splayed described as being adjacent to Post Office Passage; internal reveals, plastered, those to the second storey i.e., this is the present site of what is now known as being packed out with wood shavings. No. 4 Winding Street. This occupation continued up The two windows in the north wall of the loading to 1969. bay (one having been removed) and the two On the 1:1250 OS Map of 1899 7 the site of the windows in the south side of The Warehouse at first buildings on No. 4 Winding Street and “Trade and second‐floor levels are softwood double‐hung Paints” is shown as a solid block. sashes in large panes, with rebated reveals and 215mm (8½″) high cambered brick arches over. Interpretation There are two smaller window openings at the west end of the south side at second‐storey level, one with “No. 54” was occupied by Sir Arthur Wellesley in double‐hung sashes and the other with a casement. 1806 as his headquarters8. The building was therefore presumably built during the eighteenth History century and its appearance confirms this. “No. 55” There is a heritage plaque on the front elevation of was also of this period as an incised brick dated 1703 “No. 54” stating that “the premises was occupied by was discovered when an archaeological excavation 9 Maj. General Sir Arthur Wellesley in 1806”. The was made in 1996 . building is four storeys high, the basement floor A drawing published in Mainwaring and Baines’ being at the same level as that of the Warehouse, the book 10, purports to show Winding Street, with a ground floor being in two levels, the higher one at four‐storey building in the background with loading High Street level and the lower level at ground floor openings at the rear for loading at all levels and level of The Warehouse. Access to the upper two with a lucam at roof level. It is impossible to storeys is by way of a side door in Post Office directly relate this to the site but it is indicative of Passage. The building is of domestic appearance the sort of format that “No. 54” might have been with segmental projecting bays to upper stories and prior to the erection of the Warehouse. a ground storey shop front. It is therefore a It is probable that the Warehouse was built by E.W. reasonable assumption that this building is of Rubie in 1885 when he established his Grocery Store eighteenth century date and its architectural style on the site and at the same time occupied the confirms this. adjacent site now occupied by “Trade Paints”. There The street directories up to 18811 indicate that No. 54 are blocked‐up door openings at ground and first‐ was occupied by various trades, mainly drapers, but floor levels between the two buildings. E. W. Rubie between 1882 and 1923 it was occupied by E. W. must have been a man of some substance. He was Rubie, described as a grocer. Edward William aged 46 when he bought “No. 54” in 1882 and only

13 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

three years later built the Warehouse, this must have bond confirms this assumption, as it is inconceivable incurred considerable outlay of capital. for the wall to have been originally built like this. The reconstruction gave the outside a much more As originally built, the warehouse would have been formal appearance with the decorative cornice at open from the rear of “No. 54” right through to the parapet level. Winding Street frontage with the roof originally extending the full length of the building and Acknowledgement finished with a hipped end, with a parapet all round at the level of the south side, 9.5 m (31′ 2″) I am indebted to Clive Attrell, the Director of the above datum. The main entrance for goods was Antique Warehouse Ltd., for allowing access and to probably at the north side of the east elevation with Richard Goodman of Axel Intabuild Ltd., the a short flight of steps leading up to ground floor contractor, who adapted the warehouse for domestic level. It is possible that there was a internal hoist use, for his help and advice. located where the later lift was installed I am also very grateful to Mrs. Maureen Copping for The wall at the south side of the loading bay was her valued research into the history of the site and probably built as part of the Warehouse building. the Rubie family. The offset in the wall at the south‐west corner with the quadrant‐rounded salient angle was probably Glossary the external angle of a pre‐existing building on the Brick jack arches and filler joists. A brick arch and filler site of “Trade Paints”. The rest of the south wall joist floor construction consisting of RSJs of 3″ x 6″ was probably built off the existing walls of the rear section at 600 mm centres supporting one ring brick buildings on the site of “Trade Paints”. segmental arches bearing onto the bottom flanges of At some time later, probably between 1890 and the the RSJs. This created a fireproof floor and was much 1920s, the Warehouse was modified to incorporate favoured in factory building in the period 1890 to the three smoke rooms. It is not known what 1920,12 by which time the use of reinforced concrete product was smoked here, although it is understood became the norm. that bacon was smoked there, post WWII 11. By Slate sizes. Welsh slates were normally delivered to practising as a grocer, this does seem to preclude the the site in standard sizes, with the sizes named preparation of fish, although Hastings, being a “Ladies” (8″ x 16″), “Countess” (10″ x 20″) and fishing town, it seems possible that fish was also “Duchess” (12″ x 24″) prepared here. This work comprised the following : a) Installation of the three smoke rooms Notes and References 1. Various Directories have but consulted but not b) Alteration of the roof to incorporate the ridge referenced individually. running north to south with three smoke vents, and 2. Newspaper cutting in Hastings Reference Library, raising of the gables at the north and south ends of H.687‐12 (20.09.1969) the roof. 3. Tony Earnshaw, one of the founders of Trade Paints,— c) Formation of the three air inlets to the Smoke personal comment Rooms with the brick recesses in the east wall. 4. William Gent, Map of Hastings (1852/53) d) Creation of a loading bay with access to Winding 5. 1:1,250 OS map Sheet LXXI.3.6, 1st Edition (1873) Street, with the wooden roller shutter on the loading 6. Pikes, Blue Book (1881/1881) bay platform. 7. 1:1,250 OS map Sheet LXXI 3.6, 2nd Edition (1899) e) As the brickwork of the east elevation and of the 8. Heritage wall plaque on No. 55 High Street two gable ends of the smoke rooms had been 9. Ann Scott, 55 High Street Hastings, an excavation report, disturbed, the opportunity was taken to extend the Hastings Archaeology and Research Group Journal (October, 1996) new external face of the brickwork along the whole of the north elevation. It might seem inconceivable 10. Mainwaring Baines, Historic Hastings, Plate 111 to do this but there is evidence that the outer 115mm 11. Personal comment from a member of staff of Trade (4½″) was cut away and replaced with new red Paints brickwork. The fact that the inner face of the wall is 12. M. Bussell, Steel Constructions Institute, Appraisal of in English bond whereas the outer face is in Flemish Existing Iron and Steel Structures, (1997), p.15

14 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

HASTINGS

STREET,

WINDING

4

No.

15 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

HASTINGS

STREET,

WINDING

4

No.

16 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

HASTINGS

STREET,

WINDING

4

No.

17 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

HASTINGS

STREET,

WINDING

4

No.

18 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY a rare thing) and was heightened by their both being RECONSTRUCTION OF MIDHURST early depictions of building works. Artists did not often choose construction as a subject (save for the NORTH MILL erection of landmark structures) which made them doubly rare. I did battle on the saleroom floor and Alan H. J. Green managed to secure the two pictures for my collection. Introduction The paintings One of Chichester’s two auction houses, Stride & Son, holds three sales a year devoted solely to books Both the paintings, which are unsigned, are in and manuscripts. The viewing of these sales is perfect condition seemingly never having been compulsory for local historians as witnessed by the framed and exposed to daylight. One (Fig. 2) is a following entry in the catalogue for the sale on 5 watercolour on paper, size 218mm x 290mm, which February 2008: carries in verso two conflicting inscriptions. At the Lot 322 NORTH MILL MIDHURST : two unframed top, in pencil, is North Mill May 1810 whilst at the views, one watercolour 1810 and the other grey wash bottom, also in pencil, is Rebuilding North Mill May 1840. 1840 and then, to compound the confusion, a date of 1810 has been added alongside this in ink! I duly sought out Lot 322 but was surprised to find that, rather than being two different views of the The second work (Fig. 5) is a grey wash on paper, water mill, they both depicted a construction site. measuring 218mm x 325mm, and showing much the However the location was instantly recognisable as same view as the watercolour. It carries in verso only being Midhurst North Mill, looking due west with one inscription, namely May 1840, in pencil. Despite the embankment of the Fernhurst turnpike road and the implied 30‐year difference in their dates the two its bridges in the background. My interest had been views are clearly of the same operation so some sparked by the fact that one was apparently a research was called for to verify which of the two Georgian view of Midhurst (which in itself would be proffered dates was correct.

Fig 1. A picture postcard view of Midhurst North Mill looking east with the bridge carrying the Fernhurst turnpike over the River Rother on the right. The building to the north is the mill cottage whilst the rebuilt mill is largely obscured by the trees. The card is postmarked 1911. (Author’s collection)

19 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

collection)

(Author’s

standing.

left

been

has

right

the

to

cottage

mill

the

only

buildings

previous

the

Of

works.

reconstruction

the

of

view

watercolour

The

Fig.2

20 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

date of the last reconstruction of North Mill; a date Midhurst North Mill that would tie in roughly with the 1810 option. In North Mill was one of two water mills in Midhurst the paintings the former mill buildings have been powered by the western River Rother. It is actually razed to below ground level save for the cottage in the parish of Easebourne and sited to the north of which has been left standing on the edge of the site. the town on the east side of the A272 near its This cottage, with its chimneys at either end, is junction with the A286 to Fernhurst (Grid ref. SU clearly that which survives today (as Mill Cottage) 889220). Although it has long since ceased to be and is equally clearly of a Georgian date as can be operational the buildings still stand and now form appreciated from Fig. 3 below. The cottage is largely three separate dwellings known as North Mill, North built of the local cretaceous sandstone with red brick Mill Cottage and North Mill House. quoins under a tiled roof, but its south wall is of red brick. Stidder and Smith, in their Watermills of Sussex1, state that there have been several mills on this site dating The current main mill building, adjoining the back to at least 1284. The current mill had two cottage to the south, although also of the local stone breast‐shot wheels served by a race which diverged is in a remarkably different style which, with its from the Rother just below the weir and passed steep parapet gables and a few arched windows, has under the road in a tunnel. By 1961 the mill was only more than a whiff of the Victorian about it pointing working in the afternoons and it closed down to 1840 as being the more likely date. High up in the shortly afterwards. All the machinery was removed gable facing the road is a date‐stone but regrettably and the operational part of the building converted it is illegible, even from close quarters. into a house, now known as North Mill. Another lead in solving the dating conundrum is to 1810 or 1840? be found in the English Heritage citation for North Mill’s Grade II listing, namely: Mill is dated 1840 but Unfortunately neither painting carries a watermark, stands on the site of an earlier 19th century building. which would have provided a useful ‘no‐earlier‐ Back in 1959, when the citation was written, erosion than’ date, but Stidder and Smith give 1806 as the by wind and acid rain had probably not taken its toll

Fig.3 The mill cottage as it is today, looking east. The change in style between it and the main mill buildings adjoining is obvious. (Author)

21 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

on the aforementioned date‐stone. Further evidence Easebourne, carries the date of 1776 on the outside supporting 1840 is found in an advertisement face of its western parapet. published in the Norfolk Chronicle of 16 September On the south‐east corner of the cottage the timber 1843 which offered the letting of North Mill. The partition walls, where it once adjoined the mill advertised prospects were glowing: The mill and the buildings, have been exposed by the demolition greater part of the house were entirely rebuilt in 1840, in works. Coming in from the right of the picture is an the most substantial manner.2 elevated timber walkway in the form of duck boards In the watercolour can be seen a masonry arch. This which ends abruptly in mid air. However, the main was inserted through the road embankment for item of interest is the tripod of what is obviously a flood‐relief purposes and the citation for the listing piling rig that is to be used to drive timber piles of North Mill states that this occurred in 18263 through the soft sand into more solid strata beneath. which, if correct, firmly precludes 1810 from being the date of the paintings. So there we have it ‐ the mill was rebuilt in 1840 apart, that is, from the cottage which must be all that remains of the 1806 buildings. It is this 1840 reconstruction that our anonymous artist has captured.

Fig.5 The second picture. It is a grey‐wash version of the same scene as the watercolour but painted from a more northerly viewpoint. (Author’s collection)

The second picture (see Fig. 5) is painted from a Fig. 4 The west face of the main mill buildings today, looking north. In the apex of the gable is set a date‐stone slightly more northerly viewpoint and also closer in which is now illegible. The 1806 mill cottage lies beyond. and provides clearer detail. The exposed studwork (Author) of the partition walls in the corner of the cottage is very distinct as is the duckboard walkway, and The rebuilding under the tripod a timber pile can be seen, set in what appears to be a piling gate. In both paintings the works are depicted at an early stage. Looking at the watercolour first (see Fig. 2) we Tantalisingly, neither view gives any clear indication see that a considerable amount of excavation has as to how the piling rig worked; in the watercolour taken place across the site of the former buildings some block‐and‐tackle equipment is in use nearby and several large blocks of stone are protruding, but it seems to be in the process of moving a block of Stonehenge‐like, from the ground. Into the flood‐ stone. Either the artist did not understand what he relief arch stop planks have been inserted in order to was seeing or, equally possibly, the rig was still prevent a flooding of the works, and the mill race, being set up at the time and not all the equipment which passes under the road in the two tunnels, was yet in position. Either way it is most likely that would have been stopped‐off by a penstock here the piles would have been driven by the simple upstream to give a dry site. expedient of raising and dropping a hammer on a rope by means of a windlass. The rope would have Out of the picture, to the south of the flood relief passed over a pulley attached to the tripod and the arch, is another masonry arch that accommodates hammer released from on high to strike the head of the River Rother itself. That bridge, which also the pile. Very laborious, and highly dangerous, but marks the parish boundary between Midhurst and doubtless effective.

22 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

The modus operandi of a much larger contemporary Envoi piling rig is given in Fig. 6, which is an engraving of a horse‐powered floating rig of the sort used to drive the piles for the piers of Westminster Bridge; it was published in a book of 1827.4

Fig.7 The mill buildings today, viewed from the north east, with the lane leading to Cowdray House in the foreground. The part of the building to the right with the chimney in its gable is the 1806 cottage now called Mill Cottage which, to its south, is abutted by the main part of the 1840 buildings now known as North Mill. To the east of the 1806 cottage is more of the 1840 rebuild now called North Mill House. The mill race passes below the two balconied casement windows. (Author) Fig.6 A drawing of a late‐Georgian horse‐powered floating piling rig. The horses are harnessed to a gin and, as they walk around, the hammer is raised by ropes in its Although I must admit to being disappointed at guides then drops onto the pile held in the gate. finding that my newly‐acquired pictures were not (Author’s collection) Georgian but Victorian, they are still immensely interesting and very important. One does have to This engraving explains how the Thames bridges wonder why the anonymous artist chose to portray were built in the days before steam‐powered piling the construction works at all, let alone at such an hammers were perfected. The horses walked round early stage of the proceedings, but despite his continuously in the gin and as they did so the leaving technical questions unanswered we should hammer was wound to the top of its guides whence be jolly grateful that he did ‐ and that they have the complex mechanism automatically dropped it survived. onto the pile and then picked it up again to repeat In closing I would like to thank Mr and Mrs Andy the cycle. This principle could obviously be used on Davey who kindly permitted me to view Midhurst dry land and also on a smaller scale. North Mill and see the admirable restoration work Returning to the Midhurst pictures, to the right of that they are carrying out, and to Peter Hill for the tripod in both views a long, tapering timber providing me with a copy of Sydney Simmons’ notes beam can be seen running down to ground level, the about North Mill. purpose of which is not immediately obvious, especially as it appears to be constrained by vertical References timbers. Is it too fanciful to imagine that, in the 1. Derek Stidder and Colin Smith, Watermills of Sussex Vol arrangement our artist has portrayed, the long, II. Self published 2001. tapered beam was going to be lifted to the top of the 2. This advertisement is cited by Sydney Simmons in his tripod to form part of a single‐horse gin working on 1939 notes on Midhurst North Mill. SIAS Mills Group a similar principle to the floating piling rig? archive. Whatever the means used to drive the piles, 3. It also states that all the bridges here were widened on the east side in 1912. This widening can be clearly seen substantial new buildings arose from them to abut from beneath the bridges. the earlier cottage on its south and east sides and 4. William Emerson, The Principles of Mechanics: New this new mill was to remain in active service for over edition with an appendix by G A Smeaton, Civil Engineer, J 120 years. Taylor,High Holborn, London 1827. Copy in the author’s collection.

23 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

TURNPIKES TO STEYNING, pasturage for sheep”. Its fortnightly market for HENFIELD AND SHOREHAM cattle, corn and other produce was rated “equal to any in the county” and a fair held in October for Brian Austen sheep and cattle “one of the largest fairs in the county”2. Steyning also had an importance as a The connection of Horsham to London by turnpike communications hub for it was close to river access in 1755 made the produce of the area accessible to to Shoreham and to the ancient east west route way the growing market of an expanding capital city, along the crest of the Downs. The turnpike brought increasing not only the prosperity of the farming prosperity and commentators noted the “great community but also of the landowners and the improvements with buildings and general region at large. The Rev. Arthur Young claimed that appearance of the town”. It was also a place where agricultural rents rose by more than 50% on the magistrates met in petty session. Shortly after, in completion of the road1. It is little wonder therefore 1771, a further thrust southwards was effected by that a plan to extend turnpike improvement south the Cowfold and Henfield Trust which enabled through the Weald to the small town of Steyning traffic from Henfield to reach London by turnpike. received support. An act to effect this was passed in It connected with Brighton, Cuckfield and Lovell 1764. Of itself Steyning was not a place of great Heath Trust, only opened the previous year, at commercial importance but the land in its vicinity Handcross or by a short branch to the Horsham and was ”fertile and the adjoining downs afforded good Steyning Trust at Partridge Green. Henfield itself

Key to Tollhouses 1. Horsham 2. Bines 3. Wappingthorn 4. Bramber 5. Beeding 6. Truckers’ Hatch 7. Crabtree 8. Corner House 9. Crouch Hill 10. Monk’s Gate 11. Chestham 12. Blackstone 13. Hurstpierpoint 14. Hurstpierpoint East 15. Hassocks 16. Keymer Side Bar 17. Muddleswood 18. Aldrington 19. Salt Farm 20. Sea Mills 21. Coolham Green Fig. 1 Turnpikes in the Steyning, Henfield and Shoreham area (Ron Martin) 22. Shipley

24 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

was not a centre of importance. Its population was encouraging initially, with coaches operating from 1,516 in 1831 and it served only as a local centre of Brighton to Worthing, Portsmouth and commerce with a Friday market and fairs in May Southampton. Steyning had a service every two and July3. Both of these trusts followed the pattern days connecting Brighton and Midhurst and seen in early turnpike development nationally of Henfield was on the line of a service from Brighton roads extending like spokes from a central hub, ever to Oxford or Windsor5. This passenger traffic was further to serve the capital’s needs. promptly stopped by coastal railway development in the 1840s. Only in the case of the Crouch Hill, It is therefore surprising that at an early date Henfield to Ditchling Trust was direct railway communication by turnpike from east to west was competition absent and there was the ability to tap considered necessary. Only six years after the traffic heading for Hassocks Gate railway station Cowfold and Henfield Trust, the line of road just once it was open in September 1841. north of Henfield at Crouch Hill was connected to Ditchling by way of Hurstpierpoint and Keymer. The Horsham and Steyning Trust (1764) This road took advantage of the greensand ridge and from its commencement tapped two of the main The Act of 1764 (4 Geo III c44) authorised the roads from Brighton to London, the Newchapel and Trustees to maintain the road from the Carfax in Brighton at Ditchling and the Brighton, Cuckfield Horsham proceeding along West Street and then and Lovell Heath Trust at Stone Pound in the parish south through Southwater to the Knepp Castle Park, of Clayton, both opened in 1770. Later it was also to the original line of the A24 before the completion of make a junction with the Pyecombe and Hickstead the Southwater bypass. At this point the road took Trust of 1808, which quickly became the preferred the line of the current B2135 through West route to Brighton from the capital. This ability to Grinstead, Partridge Green and Ashurst, entering feed traffic into major arteries feeding London no Steyning from the west. Here it formed two doubt accounted for its introduction and success. branches, one leading from the “Heathen Burials at Bramber”, west of the village, to the top of Steyning At this point however turnpike development south Round Hill from where roads descended to Findon of Horsham stalled, and it was not until 1807 that it and Sompting. The other branch continued through restarted with a road a mere 3 miles and 24 rods in Bramber and Upper Beeding to the “Direction Post length along the east bank of the River Adur to on Beeding Hill in the road to Lewes”. Thus the two connect Upper Beeding with Shoreham and its river branches headed for the ridge of the South Downs crossing. It was later still that further development on either side of the Adur gap allowing access both occurred in the 1820s. The growth of Shoreham as a east and west along the dry ridge way. No port followed improvements to the harbour effected alteration was made until 1807 (47 Geo III session 2 in 1816. Its position half way from Brighton to cap 116). This Act allowed the abandonment of the Worthing, both experiencing rapid urban steep ascent to the top of Beeding Hill “in the road development, accounted for its success, with a to Brighton” and allowed the formation of a new fourfold increase in port revenue between 1810 and road along the valley bottom through Erringham to 18304. Such success prompted the turnpiking of the Old Shoreham Bridge, then south of Buckingham coast road from Brighton to Shoreham in 1822 and House to Kingston. This new road from Upper that from Worthing to Lancing two years later. The Beeding southwards to the coast is sometimes listed short gap was closed when a new bridge and separately in parliamentary returns as the Beeding connecting road from it to Lancing were authorised Trust. The 1807 Act specified that the toll revenue in 1830. The success of these coastal turnpikes was and expenses for the old and new roads were to be not matched by another east to west route kept separate, and divided the administration of the authorised in 1824. This was for an ambitious Trust into two districts, the First District consisting turnpike from Mare Hill, Pulborough to connect of the original line and the Second District the 1807 with the Horsham and Steyning Trust at both extension which terminated at “Shoreham Bridge in Southwater and Bucks Barn, West Grinstead. Much the parish of Old Shoreham”. The wording of the plan had to be abandoned because of a lack of questions whether the short extension to Kingston resources and only a short section at the eastern end, was ever undertaken. Separate tables of tolls for known as the Shipley Trust, was ever operated. the two Districts were incorporated in the 1828 Traffic between Brighton and Worthing was renewal act (9 Geo IV c70), those for the Second

25 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

District being lower because the distance was less. Traffic along the line of the Trust appears to have been adequate from its inception to cover maintenance costs and pay the mortgagees the interest due on the sums raised initially to improve it. Sums were also available for more ambitious improvements such as the cutting formed at Picts Hill, south of Horsham in 1809 to ease the gradient6. Most of the traffic appears to have been initially on the northern section of the Turnpike leading to Horsham with the Horsham Gate alone in July 1820 yielding more than £460 per annum7. In the year to Fig. 2 Horsham or Picts tollhouse c.1922; September 1829 the line from Horsham to Steyning painting by W. S. Russell was yielding £1,028 in tolls and £135 10s (£135.50) in Horsham TQ 165297 (Fig.2) addition was contributed by the parishes in lieu of statute labour; expenditure over the same period Situated south of Horsham on the A24 Worthing was £901 11s 9d (£901.59). For the same period the Road just beyond the railway over bridge, ten chains section from Beeding to Shoreham had an income of north of the “Fox and Hounds” (now the “Boar’s £290 plus £10 in parish payments against Head”) public house12. It was also known as Picts expenditure of £185 3s 9d (£185.19)8. In 1840 the Hill Gate or Denne Park Gate. It was the most road was reported to be in good repair with no productive of all the gates on the Trust but its section under indictment because of public closeness to Horsham made it unpopular and as complaint9. By this date, however, railway early as August 1808 it was condemned as a “gross competition was seen as a real threat and a petition and unbearable insolence”. The tollhouse is in April 1839 for a new turnpike from Beeding to illustrated in a drawing by John Albery13 and is Poynings Common was not acted upon. The threat shown as a weather‐boarded bungalow with a slated became real in July 1861 when the Horsham to roof, probably consisting of two rooms. He also Shoreham line opened, closely paralleling the road. relates that the last gate keeper was Mrs Jane Hill, By 1869 the Beeding Gate , the only toll house on the aged 70 in 1885, who lived with her daughter. The Lower District was being farmed out by the trustees house was demolished in 192614. for £130, less than half of that of 1829. This had Bines TQ 189183 fallen to £120 in the following year but was maintained at or above this level throughout the The tollhouse was on the west side of the B2135 road 1870s and 1880s reaching £147 in 1881. The road just to the south of Partridge Green, just to the south was however reported to be in good order and flints of the road leading to Pinland Farm and north of were being regularly purchased for its repair. Bines Bridge15. Albery relates that the last toll gate Income was sufficient for sums to be allocated for keeper was the husband of Jane Hill. He managed the paying off of the mortgage debt, £200 in March the gate despite the fact that he was blind. The 1856, £300 in March 1859 and £1,689 12s (£1,689.60) house no longer survives and no illustrations of it in 1860, though the 1860 renewal Act specified a have been located. A two‐storey, three‐bay house reduction in the interest paid from 4% to 3%. The named Pinland Cottage may be on the site. Trust was however wound up on 1 November 1885 Wappingthorne TQ 176139 when the powers finally expired.10. Also known as Crockfield Gate. It was on the east Tollhouses side of the road facing a lane leading to Calcot 16 The Act setting up the Trust specified that a gate and Farm , on a plot of land of 1 rod and 3 perches. In tollhouse “be erected at or near the West End of a 1820 the tolls of this and Bines gate were let for a 17 Bridge called Bramber Bridge” and three or more mere £110 for the year . The gate was abandoned at 18 gates on other parts of the road11. Four gates were the time of the 1860 renewal act and the tollhouse provided in response and this number is indicated and plot sold to Walter Barttelott Barttelott of in parliamentary returns. Stopham House for £25, the house to be demolished19.

26 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

divided into two rooms, with a central chimney stack. As tollhouse keepers had monies collected in the course of their duties they were a target for criminals, especially as they were often elderly. In May 1841 the Beeding keeper was attacked by three men but managed to break away, closed the door and was able to threaten the attackers with a double‐ barrelled gun. They left empty‐handed24. In November 1885 the tollhouse site was offered to the Surveyor of the Highways of Upper Beeding for road widening and a resolution passed to demolish the house and incorporate four feet of the site into the road. The remainder was offered to John Fig. 3 Bramber tollhouse c.1870 Drewett the adjoining landowner for £71 (Alan Barwick—Henfield Museum) subsequently reduced to £6025. The house however Bramber TQ 186106 survived and subsequent to 1885 was extended to the north and east with an added sitting room, toilet Situated on the south side of the road through and bathroom, and though it lost some four feet at Bramber village between the eastern boundary of the west to allow for road widening. As it was close the castle grounds and the Castle Inn on a plot of to a busy road it suffered the fate of many land extending to 9 perches. In 1839 the toll keeper tollhouses, being damaged by a lorry which crashed was John Slinton20. Next to the Horsham Gate it was into it in 1966. In December 1967 the remainder was the one with the greatest income, being offered to demolished by a team of Sussex University students potential “farmers” at £235 in July 182021. As tolls under the supervision of J.R. Armstrong and put were taken at this gate as late as November 1885 it into store at West Dean for the Weald and survived long enough to be photographed (Fig.3). It Downland Open Air Museum, then under was timber‐framed and weather‐boarded with a consideration. Without the later extensions it was tiled roof, as other tollhouses on the Trust. The face re‐erected at West Dean (Fig. 4), the first building to to the road incorporated a door and side windows be completed and appropriately was used as the enabled the highway to be scanned for traffic22. The ticket office for the Museum26. existence of the gate is remembered in the names of buildings subsequently erected such as the Old Milestones Tollgate Private Hotel (1970) and later the Tollgate The only original Restaurant. milestone on this trust Beeding TQ 196103 still in situ is to be found at Southwater This was the only (TQ 161254). This gate on the 1807 stone, with a semi‐ extension of the circular top, stands 27” Trust to from the ground and is Shoreham. The 151/2” wide and bears site of the cottage the inscription “40/ was 100 yards MILES/FROM/ south of The LONDON” (Fig. 5). A Rising Sun public replacement stone of house on a plot of the same type giving a 10 perches on the distance of 39 miles to east side of the Fig. 5 Milestone at London has been put in Southwater road23. The place north of this one, Fig. 4 Upper Beeding tollhouse cottage was also in Southwater. It has been made by Lionel and milestone from Erringham, timber‐framed and as displayed at the Weald and Joseph of the Milestone Society and he has plans to weather‐boarded Downland Museum, Singleton make further stones giving distances of 38 and 37 and initially

27 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

miles to London27. There is however no certainty Steyning Trust at Partridge Green. This branch was that the original Southwater milestone was a pattern 4 miles and 165 yards in length and is part of the used along this section of the Trust. It may be a later present A281. The roads under the control of the replacement as in April 1970 a milestone reading Trust were further extended in 1831 when a short “BRIGHTON/23/WORTHING/18” was recorded spur from Lower Beeding to the Horsham extension beside the, then new, roundabout. It was at this (A279) completed the triangular junction30. The time partly unearthed but it was found to be in a initial cost of improving the road was financed from poor condition with the inscription barely readable. mortgage stock which by 1775 amounted to £2,725 on which 4% interest was paid31. Toll income from At the southern end of the Trust a different type of the four gates on the Trust reached a peak of £740 in milestone existed at Erringham near Shoreham on 1840, but from this point went into decline as the 1807 extension. This narrow stone merely had railway competition began to affect traffic. From the inscription “54”. It was removed in 1965 by the 1861 to 1874 the collection of tolls was leased at £315 West Sussex County Council and taken into the care per annum. At this level of income the 4% interest of the Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, on mortgages could no longer be maintained and then in the process of being formed. It is displayed from 1862 it was cut to 1%32. Direct railway close to the Beeding tollhouse. Another stone of competition had come with the opening of the similar type is to be found in the garden behind Horsham to Shoreham line in July 1861 with its Horsham Museum. This bears the number “37”. stations at Partridge Green and Henfield. The Trust Evidence suggests that this was originally sited close was wound up on 1 November 1877 with £1,125 of to Horsham and may well have been close to the site mortgage debt still outstanding33. A more detailed of the Horsham Gate. It is possible that this pattern history of this Trust was published in Sussex of stone was in use along the whole length of the Industrial History 37 (2007) and 38 (2008). Trust and may well date to the first decade of the nineteenth century or earlier. It should however be Tollhouses noted that the 1932 6” OS map shows no milestone Parliamentary returns in 1829 and 1840 list four at this point, suggesting that it was missing at this tollhouses on the initial line of the road and one on date and posing the question, was it removed when the branch from Lower Beeding to Horsham. There the tollhouse was demolished c.1926? A possible were however three side gates in addition34. alternative location for the Horsham Museum stone would be on the Brighton road south of Horsham Truckers Hatch TQ 256295 town centre where a milestone “37 TO LONDON” The tollhouse was situated on the south side of the was shown on maps near the tannery. Other B2110 at the point where a minor road runs south to milestones on the northern section of the Henfield to Warninglid. The gate was across the main road Horsham road are however of a different type. only. The keeper’s cottage was the most substantial on this road, being of brick construction with a tiled The Cowfold and Henfield Trust (1771) roof. The accommodation included a living room, The Act28 establishing this trust authorised the bedroom, wash house, pantry and oven. The garden turnpiking of the road from Handcross, where a was of 300 square yards in extent and contained a junction was made with the recently opened (1770) brick‐lined well. It was valued in January 1877 at Brighton, Cuckfield and Lovell Heath Trust, through £68 but was sold to Warden Sergison of Cuckfield Cowfold and south to Henfield – the present B2110 Park for £60. The house may have been demolished and then the A281. A short branch was also soon after as the tithe map indicates that it was built included from Corner House, Shermanbury to into the road35. Partridge Green where access was made with the Crab Tree TQ 217242 Horsham and Steyning Trust of 1764. Thus Henfield was given turnpike connections with both London The house was on the east side of the A281 road, a and Horsham. The total distance was 12 miles and 3 mile north of Cowfold village centre and furlongs. When the Act was due for renewal in 1792 immediately north of the point at which a minor an extension was added from Crab Tree, Lower road made a junction from the south‐east. Gates Beeding to Horsham29, no doubt a reflection of the appear to have been in place across both the main considerable traffic diverted on to the Horsham and and minor roads. Its name derives from a public

28 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

house about a half a mile to the south. Near the time of the winding up of the Trust, on 3 January 1877, the tollhouse was described as being “part timber built and weather boarded and a part brick built and part sandstone built”. It was valued with its garden at £32. The house was built within the boundary of the road and was thus demolished almost immediately on the cessation of the Trust. The piece of land opposite, used as a garden, was sold in 1878 to Richard Hoper Esq. of Cowfold for £32. North of the tollhouse site there is a pair of late nineteenth century, brick‐built two‐storey cottages called Fig.7 Crouch Hill tollhouse c.1905 “Tollgate Cottages”36. (Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, Singleton)

Crouch Hill TQ 214174 (Fig. 7) Situated on the east side of the road immediately north of the junction with the B2116 (Crouch Hill to Ditchling Trust). The house controlled a gate across the main road and also a bar across the B2116. It was similar to Corner House tollhouse, being part timber built and weather‐ boarded and part of brick with a tiled roof. Accommodation consisted of a living room, bedroom, a store room and a wash house. The garden plot was 8 rods in extent with an additional 2 rods across the road. It was valued at £67 in January Fig.6 Corner House tollhouse c.1910 1877 and sold to James Scott of Chestham Park, Corner House TQ 205192 (Fig. 6) Henfield with 8 rods of land for £70. The 2 rods opposite were sold to James Brook Leigh of 8 Situated in Shermanbury parish at the point where Codrington Place, Brighton for £539. It was the scene the B2116 from Partridge Green makes a junction of a crime in 1776 when Thomas Langrish, the aged with the A281. The house, on the west side of the gate keeper, was assaulted by John Roberts who road, controlled a gate across the main road and also robbed him of 3s 6d (17.5p) in takings. At the assizes a side‐bar across the connecting road to the held in East Grinstead, Roberts was sentenced to be Horsham and Steyning Trust at Partridge Green, burnt in the hand and was imprisoned for a year40. also under the control of the Henfield Trust. The The tollhouse survived until the mid 1920s41. bungalow was partly timber‐built and weather‐ boarded, and partly brick‐built and had a tiled roof. Of the four toll bars on the initial line of the Trust, Accommodation consisted of a living room, Corner House was the most productive, in the year bedroom and a wash house and a garden plot of 5 1828‐29 providing £206 11s 11d (£206.60), 33.6% of rods was provided. It was valued in January 1877 at the Trust’s toll income. Crouch Hill provided 30.7% £44 and sold to Percy S. Goodman of Shermanbury and Crab Tree 27.3%. Little traffic at this date Grange for £4537. It continued to be used as a appears to have used the road from Lower Beeding dwelling, but when seen in October 1937 was stated to Handcross with Truckers Hatch taking only £50 to be in a dilapidated condition after standing 16s 5d (£50.82) or 8.4%42. derelict for some time. It was however sold in the The only tollhouse on the 1792 extension to Horsham same year and appears to have been used until the was: 1950s when it was seriously damaged when a lorry drove into it. The remains were not removed until Monk’s Gate TQ 204276 the 1960s38. Its former presence is recalled in the It was built at the junction of the A281 and a minor name “Tollgate Cottage” (formerly Shermanbury road leading to Nuthurst and Maplehurst and to the Post Office) a short distance to the south of the site A272. A proposal was made in March 1841 to on the same side of the A281. demolish the tollhouse and move the gate nearer to

29 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

Horsham, close to the Dunn Horse public house at REST/DECEMBER 27 1928/AGED 79 YEARS”. This Mannings Heath. It may have been hoped that this singular milestone was commented upon in the would increase revenue. The Cowfold and Henfield Hertfordshire Countryside in February and July 1969 Trust was not wound up until 1877 but the powers and in August 1975. Mrs Faulconer was contacted to maintain the branch road to Horsham were not and stated that the stone had been donated by Lord renewed when they expired in 1862. This part of the Leconfield and was originally at Pease Pottage “on Trust was continued on an annual basis under the the Brighton – Horsham road”. Her husband shared Annual Turnpike Continuation Act, but in March similar interests to Lord Leconfield and was stated 1869 a decision was taken to terminate control to be “passionately fond of horses and used to drive effective from 1 November of the same year. On 16 a coach whenever there was a chance”. Some at October 1869 an agreement was made to sell the least of this information is in error. A milestone at tollhouse and garden to Major Aldridge for £35 Pease Pottage would show distances to London and subject to the removal of the front porch which was Brighton and certainly not Horsham and of course it probably deemed an obstruction to road traffic. This would not be on the Brighton to Horsham road. The agreement suggests a continuation of the tollhouse identical shape of inscription would place it on the as a dwelling but as no photographic images exist it northern section of the Cowfold and Henfield trust44. might suggest demolition a few decades later. A Bridge Inscription two‐storey cottage named “Laburnum Cottage” of late nineteenth‐century appearance now stands on Mock Bridge TQ 210183 the site43. The rebuilding of this bridge over the River Adur Milestones was noted on a stone incorporated in the structure. This states: Only one milestone on this road is in situ. This “Erected and supported by the Trustees of this is at Lower Beeding on Turnpike. William Lane 1794” the west side of the road In 1930 this stone was “reset in the outside of the nearly opposite Beedlee upside parapet to the left of the recess between the Cottage (TQ 218265). It main bridge and the extension”45. The bridge has has a semi‐circular top, been subsequently altered and the stone no longer is 15 inches wide and 3 appears to be visible. inches deep and stands 26 inches above the The Crouch Hill (Henfield) and Ditchling surface of the ground. Trust (1777) The inscription reads “BRIGHTON/ 18 Henfield had been connected to the main road to MILES” and London at Handcross in 1771 but only six years later Fig.8 Milestone at Lower “HORSHAM/ 4 MILES” an easterly route from Henfield was turnpiked Beeding separated by a providing junctions with the two existing London to horizontal line (Fig. 8). In style it would appear to Brighton turnpikes, the Lovell Heath (Crawley) be early nineteenth‐century. Trust of 1770 at Stone Pound (Hassocks) and the Newchapel and Brighton Trust, established in the A further stone of the same type also survives but same year, at Ditchling46. Later, a further connection not in situ. This is now in the churchyard of St. developed with the Pyecombe and Hickstead Trust Paul’s Church, Langleybury, Herts. reused as a of 1808 at Albourne. Although not ambitious in its gravestone. The milestone face (now the back of the length, as it was only 7 miles, 5 furlongs and 77 tombstone) shows distances to “BRIGHTON” and yards in extent, it was unusual for such east to west “HORSHAM”. However, through age the distances turnpikes to develop this early. The route of this are uncertain, though that to Brighton appears to Trust is currently the B2116. In 1798, when its act have two digits and that to Horsham one. The was due for renewal, it obtained powers for a short milestone arrived in the churchyard in 1928 and branch from Ubneys Farm (Albourne) to bears the additional inscription “IN LOVING Newtimber47. Ten years later most of this branch MEMORY/OF/WILLIAM RUDSON/FAULCONER/ was to be absorbed into the new Pyecombe and OF ABBOTS LANGLEY/WHO ENTERED INTO Hickstead Trust, the present A23 and B2118. Yet a

30 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

further short branch, 2 miles and 2 furlongs in the traffic, raised doubts on the need for its length, came in 1834, connecting Hurstpierpoint continuance and on 1 November 1868, when its with Poynings Common, making a junction with the powers expired, there was no enthusiasm to extend Pyecombe and Hickstead Trust at Muddleswood them further52. and with the Henfield and Brighton Trust of 1798 at Tollhouses Poynings Common48. This branch road was promoted by a Dr Weekes in the hope that it would Parliamentary returns in 1829 listed 6 gates, in 1840 7 divert London traffic off the line of the Pyecombe gates and in 1851 6 gates, though some of these may and Hickstead Trust on to the line of the have been side‐bars, as only four gates and one side‐ Hurstpierpoint and Anstye Turnpike authorised in bar were advertised as available for farming in the same year. So confident was he that he invested 182053. in a new hotel at Hurstpierpoint (The Lamb) with Chestham TQ 216176 stabling to service the traffic. The Poynings Common branch commencing immediately to the The first gate from the Henfield end and on the east of Hurstpierpoint church, involved a deep north side of the road with a garden plot of 21 cutting on a new alignment. It was in vain, as the perches54. This was close to Chestham Park which in traffic never materialised49. Also in the 1830s the 1827 was the residence of John Wood55. No alignment of the road between Keymer and illustration is known of the tollhouse which may Ditchling was altered. The original line ran to the have been demolished soon after the winding up of south of the present road and the new line formed a the Trust in 1868. straight and shorter route heading directly towards Ditchling church and the present crossroads50. Traffic along this west to east route was mainly of a local nature and never heavy. Farming of the tolls commenced as early as 1800. The revenue from tolls in 1819 ranged from £154 at the Hurst Gate and £128 at the Hassocks Gate, down to £70 at the Chestham Gate and £64 at Blackstone Gate, suggesting that most of the traffic at this date was on the easterly sections of the Trust. In the following year there was no problem in letting the Hurst Gate for £166 and the Hassocks Gate for £129 but the other two gates 51 attracted no response . Nevertheless in 1829 income Fig.9 Blackstone tollhouse 1956 at £334 8s 3d (£334.41) aided by parish composition (Alan Barwick—Henfield Museum) (in lieu of statute labour) of £36 10s (£36.50) more than covered the expenditure of £337 17s 9d Blackstone TQ 245173 (Fig. 9) (£337.89). The mortgage debt in that year stood at It was situated close to the junction of the B2116 and £1,840 17s (£1840.85) and interest was paid on this a minor road leading south through Blackstone to amounting to £73 12s 2d (£73.61). As late as 1851 the the A281. The tollhouse was on the south side of the Trust was able to pay 4% interest on its debt which road with a garden plot of 28 perches and a gate was then standing at £1,383 5s (£1,383.25). Toll across the B211656. The tollhouse was demolished in income in 1850 was still at its former levels, 1974 and in a survey of 1970 was described as amounting to £326 17s 1d (£326.85). Unlike trusts having a 32ft brick frontage to the road with a formerly served by long‐distance coaching and doorway flanked by two windows. Part of this carrier services, income was not affected by the frontage at the west was an extension and the coming of the railway. Local traffic to the station at doorway would originally have been central. The Hassocks from the Hurstperpoint direction would extension was deeper than the original structure have boosted income and some lesser additions thus producing an L‐shaped ground plan. The west would have occurred at the Henfield end. No face, not original to the tollhouse, was weather‐ railway directly competed with the Trust. Public boarded. The hipped roof was tiled, with prominent resentment at paying tolls for short journeys to take plain chimney stacks, the one on the east being the train, added to the localised nature of much of original and the other a copy on the extension. The

31 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

windows had side sliding frames. The original part Turnpike prior to the opening of the railway that may well have been the tollhouse, provided c.1777 would involve the closure of the gate in return for for the opening of the Trust, and the other original road improvements such as the new road under the houses may have been of a similar pattern. track at Hassocks and possibly the financing of the new direct line of road from Keymer to Ditchling Hurstpierpoint TQ 277166 which was built at about this time. No turnpike At the entrance to Hurstpierpoint from the west records survive however to confirm such an (West Town) at the junction of the B2116 with a road arrangement 61. leading northwards towards Ansty (Western Road). Keymer Lodge Side‐bar TQ 314151 It was described in 1826 as “just before the White Horse on the way west”57. In 1834 doubts were Placed across Lodge Lane which leads south from expressed about the location of this gate. Farmers the turnpike to the road that connected Westmeston with produce for the Brighton markets were accused to Clayton along the foot of the Downs. The toll of avoiding tolls by using Danny Lane as a route for revenue from this side‐bar was probably small and their traffic. It was therefore proposed to move the in 1820 it was being let as a single entity with the gate eastwards to the entrance to Danny Lane with a Hassocks gate for £129 per annum. It may have gate across the Turnpike and also a side‐bar. There been discontinued in 1830 when the Newchapel and were objectors to this proposal and a compromise Brighton Turnpike built its new line of road from was eventually reached to leave the White Horse Ditching to the foot of Clayton Hill (part of the gate in place but to establish a new gate “between B2112). This new road had a tollhouse of its own at the village and Danny Lane”, some quarter of a mile the southern end of Lodge Lane at the junction of the nearer the village than originally proposed58. The two roads62. Hurstpierpoint tollhouse was built into the road Muddleswood TQ 269149 with no garden and is not identified on the 1842 tithe map59. This is believed to be the only tollhouse on the 1834 branch from Hurstpierpoint to Poynings Common. Hurstpierpoint East TQ 288160 It stood to the south of the road close to the point Established just to the west of Danny Lane as a where it made a junction with the Pyecombe and result of the compromise arrived at in November Hickstead Trust, which also had a gate nearby. The 1835 and clearly shown on the tithe map of 1842. tollhouse was on a plot of only 2 perches in extent63. Like the White Horse gate in Hurstpierpoint it had On the site of the tollhouse stands a two‐storey no garden and was built into the road. As a result it house of three bays with a central door named would have been demolished on the expiry of the “Tollgates”. The building was involved in a fire in Trust in 1868. The name given to this gate has not the 1950s or 1960s and as a result it has been been established and the name used here is the extensively re‐fronted. The back appears to be invention of the author. Victorian but there is a small square “observation” window at the west end and it is possible that some Hassocks TQ 302155 vestiges of the original tollhouse are incorporated in On the western approach to Hassocks railway the existing building. The road junction has been station, which when it was opened in September extensively altered in recent years and the cottage 1841 was called Hassocks Gate, retaining this name described is now on a cul‐de‐sac to the east of the until October 1881. The gate was probably one of line of the former A23. those originally set up at the creation of the Trust in A bungalow at Albourne, known as Pound Cottage, 1777. The Clayton parish tithe map of 184160 shows has been identified as a tollhouse. It is on the south the line of the railway and also the line of the side of the B2116 just past the turning south to turnpike passing under the railway as it does now, Albourne Green and has the village pound as well as the west and east approach roads to the immediately to its west. No documentary evidence station. It is inconceivable that the London and to support this identification has been found and it is Brighton Railway would want a turnpike gate not shown on the tithe map of 1838/39. It is within a few yards of one of its stations and nor considered unlikely to be a tollhouse. There is would such a gate be effective once the road had however a reference in the Sussex Weekly Advertiser been diverted to its present line. It would therefore in 1800 and 1802 of the letting of the tolls on a seem likely that an agreement was reached with the

32 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

Tipnoak Gate between Blackstone and none then existed. One of these was to connect the Hurstpierpoint. This may have been on the branch bridge with the recently opened Worthing and to Newchapel opened in 1798 and largely absorbed Lancing Turnpike of 1826 at the Three Horseshoes, into the new Pyecombe and Hickstead Trust in South Lancing. A further road was authorised to 180864. connect the western end of the bridge with the Sussex Pad Inn on the present A27 but this was Milestones never constructed as the Old Shoreham Bridge None located though they did exist. An continued in use. The new bridge was to collect its advertisement placed in October 1820 for fifty own tolls and the Brighton to Lancing Trust was wagon loads of flints for road repair stated that the entitled to part of these to cover the expected material was for road repair between High Cross deficiency caused by the expense of constructing the and the “Mile Stone on the east side of the town of new road to Lancing until such time as the costs had Hurstpierpoint”65. been cleared. The line of road authorised by the 1822 Act was 7 miles and 10 perches in length with Brighton, Shoreham & Lancing Trust 1822 one tollhouse at Aldrington. Post 1830 its length was increased to 8 miles 7 furlongs and 9 perches The rapid growth of Brighton in the early nineteenth and an additional gate was erected along the line of century necessitated the improvement of the road the extension at Salt Farm, Lancing70. between that town and Shoreham. Although cargoes could be discharged from beached coasting In its initial years the Trust appears to have vessels at Brighton the practice was not acceptable to generated surpluses and in the year to Michaelmas fashionable visitors, nor could it be extended to 1829 had an income of £1,367 10s (£1,367.50) and larger vessels increasingly being used from the expenses of £1,185 0s 2d (£1,185.01). Interest on the 1790s. Brighton was also the place of embarkation mortgage debt of £5,300 was serviced and the for passengers using the packets to Dieppe, and Treasurer had a credit balance of £688 8s 1d being an open roadstead, and without a pier until (£688.40)71. The Trust was however to suffer from 1823, in rough conditions the service was obliged to direct railway competition. The Brighton to operate from the shelter of Shoreham harbour. Shoreham section of the London and Brighton These factors made the need for road improvements Railway opened in May 1840 and the extension to along the coast to the west of Brighton imperative. Lancing in November 1845. Anticipating this, the Trust applied for yet a further Act in 1841 to raise A survey was carried out by a J. Marchant showing a tolls because “of considerable sums raised and new line of road running “above the Cliff from arrears of interest”. In a return of 185272 the length Brighton to Hove, thence under the Cliff to of the Trust was shown as only 8 miles 1 furlong and Copperas Gap, and from there to New Shoreham this might suggest the abandonment of the link from above the Cliff”66. On the basis of this survey an New Shoreham to Old Shoreham Bridge. Powers act67 was obtained in May 1822 to” turnpike the road continued to be renewed and the Trust was not from the western extremity of the Parish of Brighton finally wound up until 187873. through Shoreham to the gate controlling the entrance to Shoreham Bridge at Old Shoreham” Tollhouses following the line of the present A259. Evidence Aldrington TQ 272043 suggests that initially the line through Shoreham was from the Surry Arms along New Street, then Initially the only gate on the Trust. On the 1843 tithe south by East Street to meet the High Street and award map it is shown 10 chains to the west of the Market Place. By 1833 however a short cut‐off had Hove parish boundary on the south side of the road been constructed to enable access from the Surry and centrally placed in a garden plot of 21 perches74. Arms along the present A259 alignment directly to By 1839, with the imminent prospect of railway the High Street68. A new Act of Parliament in 183069 competition, the trustees were anxious to raise repealed that passed only eight years earlier. This income levels and considered moving the gate renewed the powers of the earlier act but also nearer to Brighton. This plan was vigorously contained provisions for the erection of a new bridge opposed by Brighton residents who declared it to be crossing the River Adur at New Shoreham (the in violation of the Act setting up the Trust, and it Norfolk Bridge), and for new roads to be had to be abandoned75. The tollhouse was however constructed on the Lancing side of the river where re‐sited some thirty years later. A deposited plan

33 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

dated 30 November 1869 shows a new “turnpike Brighton and Hove” was it considered that copies of house” in course of construction76. This was to the the resolution were sent to Capt. Pechell M.P., the west of the original site at a point where a new road magistrates and individual turnpike trustees from Shoreham harbour made a junction with the residing in Brighton and its neighbourhood, turnpike at TQ 270046. The reason for moving the requesting their attendance at the next trustees tollhouse site is unclear but may have been the meeting to vote against this imposition. Nothing remorseless expansion of the Brighton and Hove further is heard of this matter and it is assumed that conurbation, which at this date was close to the the gate was promptly removed77. western boundary of Hove parish. No illustrations The tollhouse in Western Road on the border are known of either house. between Brighton and Hove, was for the collection of a local tax on coal brought into Brighton. Milestones None located

Worthing and Lancing Trust 1826 Lancing parish had a small population numbering 695 inhabitants in 1831. Most of these would have been in the village centre close to the present A27 road in North Lancing. The need for a coast road was thus limited, though some form of road between Worthing and South Lancing does appear to have Fig.10 Old Salt tollhouse—drawing by Montague Penley existed as early as 162278. The coastline was however c.1840 very subject to erosion and attempts made in the first decade of the nineteenth century to construct a better Salt Farm TQ 201043 road were thwarted by this factor. The growth of A modern bungalow on the A259 coast road named Worthing and the need to connect it by a shorter “The Toll House” (214, Brighton Road) apparently route to the port of Shoreham and rapidly expanding marks the location. A drawing of a tollhouse dated Brighton did encourage attempts to plan a short to c1840 and identified as “Salt Farm Gate” is shown turnpike road to connect Worthing to South Lancing. in Mark Searle’s book Turnpikes and Tollbars (p373). Plans were deposited for such a road in 1825 and The drawing is stated to be by Montague Penley, a again in 182679. The latter emphasised the need not Brighton artist, and to be in the possession of E.E. only to provide the road but to protect it from Norton (Fig. 10). The house shown is of brick erosion by the building of groynes, embankments construction with the upper part of the front tile‐ and sea defences. An act was passed in 182680 to hung. A tall chimney stack is shown and small build and maintain such a road commencing at windows to the front. The door has a lamp above it Warwick Place, Worthing to the Three Horseshoes and also a board displaying the name of the gate Inn at South Lancing, the line of the present A259. In keeper, Sarah Gamp. It has been suggested that length it was 2 miles and 8 poles and reduced the Charles Dickens, a visitor to Brighton on several distance to North Lancing from Worthing by more occasions, may have noted the name which he used than a mile. Once the turnpike from South Lancing in his novel Martin Chuzzlewit (1844) . and the Norfolk Bridge had been completed under the terms of the 1830 Act there was a saving in Hove side‐bar TQ 282043 distance of 21/2 miles between Worthing and Erected across Hove Street and probably short‐lived Shoreham. as it aroused immediate opposition. A resolution The Trust was not however to prosper. The sea was passed by the vestry of the parish of St. proved to be an implacable enemy making the road Nicholas, Brighton on 24 April 1839 condemning the at times impassable and forcing up the cost of gate as illegal under the terms not only of the maintenance. Direct railway competition with the Brighton and Shoreham Trust Act of 1822 but of opening of the London and Brighton company’s general turnpike legislation. So “injurious to west coast route as far as Worthing in November

34 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

1845, saw the immediate withdrawing of the mail on the river, possibly dating back to the eleventh and stage coaches and reduced income. As early as century, was at Upper Beeding. This provided a link 1829 expenditure was running ahead of the modest on the west to east route way along the ridge of the income of £504 18s (£504.90) and this made it South Downs. By the second half of the eighteenth impossible to service the mortgage debt of £90081. In century this hilly route was falling into disfavour, 1850 it was calculated that it would at the current while the development of Brighton and other coastal rate of income take 196 years and 11 months to pay towns was favouring a low level route along the off the existing debts of £12,663 6s 9d (£12,663.34). coast, better graded and more suitable to the fast Income was a mere £64 6s 8d (£64.34). Of the 52 growing wheeled traffic. Sussex trusts it was rated the fourth worst82. After the sea once again washed away the road, the Trustees on 8 April 1869 abandoned the fight and transferred responsibility to local authority control by means of a provisional order under the Local Government Act of 1858, with a mortgage debt of £7,405 10s (£7,405.50) still outstanding83. The problem of sea erosion was however to continue with substantial breaches in 1879 and 1887, when 600 feet of road was swept away. Eventually in 1893 a new line of road had to be built further north to bypass the troublesome section84. Tollhouse Sea Mills TQ 171031 Fig.11 Old Shoreham Bridge c.1960

This was the only tollhouse on this short Trust. It Old Shoreham Bridge TQ 206059 (Fig. 11) was situated on the north side of the road a quarter The Adur crossing at Old Shoreham is of of a mile to the west of the point where the Teville considerable antiquity and Johnston has suggested Stream flowed into the sea, close to the south end of that the route eastwards from Arundel may date the present Seamill Park Avenue. The plot was 18 back to Roman times. Details of a ferry operating perches85. No illustration has been located of this can be traced to the reign of James I and a causeway tollhouse which was said to have been demolished on the west bank extended back to the Sussex Pad in 1896. Tolls appear to have been charged as late as Inn. Descriptions of the ferry boat immediately prior 1874 when they were farmed at £107 for the year86. to the building of the bridge state that it consisted of Milestones several rafts fastened together which extended more than half way across the river. The traffic was None located. transferred to the other bank by the power of the ferryman’s pole. Not all travellers were satisfied The Adur Bridge Crossings that it was safe and convenient and in 1752 John Both of the Shoreham bridges were subject to tolls Burton declined to use it, preferring to divert to the from their opening to well into the twentieth bridge at Beeding87. century. The sums raised for their construction and In June 1770 a meeting was held at Arundel under their income and maintenance were accounted for the chairmanship of the Duke of Richmond to separately and they were not controlled by the promote a plan for a turnpike road from Chichester turnpike trusts which fed traffic on to them. It is through Arundel to Brighton. A further meeting for thus possible to argue that they should not be interested parties was arranged at the Star Inn, New included in an article dealing with turnpikes. Shoreham on 28 September88. No act materialised, Nevertheless they do constitute important elements but the interest in improving this west to east line of in through traffic within the transport infrastructure communication continued. In 1781 an act was in the southern part of Sussex, and a brief account of passed to build a bridge at Old Shoreham to replace their history is included here. the existing ferry. The capital required was raised Before their construction the lowest bridging point by a tontine, where payments ended on the death of

35 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

the investor. For this reason subscribers were more direct route along the coast. The coastal road arranged in three classes according to their age. between Brighton and Shoreham had been Units of £100 of stock were offered and 21 of the turnpiked in 1822, and that from Worthing to subscribers were aged from 1 to 17 years, 23 were 24 Lancing four years later. A gap of 21/4 miles and the to 29 years and the remaining six were 35 to 57 need for a bridge to replace the existing ferry was all years. The highest rate of return applied to those in that was required to complete the coastal route. A the third group and the lowest to those in the first scheme was put forward in 1828 but experienced group. The £5,000 raised financed a bridge of difficulties “particularly on the part of landed wooden construction 500 feet long and with a proprietors on the west bank of the River”. A new roadway 12 feet wide. The work was completed in scheme with the backing of the Duke of Norfolk was ten months under the supervision of Joseph however quickly in place and a parliamentary act Hodskinson while a Mr James of Horsham being sought. Concern was however expressed by Lord responsible for the 500 foot causeway on the western Egremont advised by Thomas Attree, on the behalf bank. The bridge was opened on 2 March 1782 by of the Old Shoreham Bridge Trustees and the the Earl of Surrey. Toll income was sufficient to pay remaining tontine stock holders. It was also feared on a regular basis to the stock holders and in 1803 that traffic would be diverted from the existing £28 each was received by the third group of Chichester, Arundel and Shoreham road of which it subscribers, £17 17s 91/4d(£17.89) by the second was stated, “I doubt whether there is in the group and £16 16s 8d(£16.84) by the first group. The Kingdom a line of road of equal extent, that can be Duke of Norfolk headed the bridge trustees. kept in good repair without any Toll”. Lord Maintenance of the wooden bridge was however Egremont petitioned the House of Commons on relatively high and necessary repairs in 1823 were behalf of the existing tontine stock holders pointing estimated to cost £1,065 5s 41/2d(£1,065.27)89. The out that the tolls on the old bridge would shortly be bridge was acquired by the London, Brighton and substantially reduced with the demise of the South Coast Railway in 1861, the year in which the remaining life annuities91. Shoreham to Horsham line was opened. It remained The trustees of the Old Shoreham Bridge had under railway control with tolls continuing to be justification for their concern. The deposited plans charged until 7 December 1970. It had already by for the new bridge envisaged not only a line of road then been replaced by the existing new alignment of to connect it with the Worthing and Lancing Trust at the A27 which included a high level river crossing South Lancing but also another road connecting the and road interchange90. new bridge to the road from Chichester and Arundel at the Sussex Pad Inn and diverting traffic away from the existing bridge crossing92. The act passed in 1830 for the new bridge met this concern by including a clause stating that the Old Shoreham Bridge would be placed under the control of the Duke of Norfolk who would be responsible for payments to the remaining tontine bond holders, an annual sum of £1,200 being allocated to this end. Powers were also given, but never acted upon, to close the old bridge after all obligations had been met93. The new suspension bridge to the designs of W. Fig.12 Norfolk Suspension Bridge c.1910 Tierney Clarke and the masonry by W. Ranger of (Marlipins Museum, Shoreham‐by‐Sea) Brighton, was opened on 1 May 1833 by the Duke of Norfolk. The old bridge was symbolically locked by New Shoreham (or Norfolk) Bridge TQ 213050 the High Constable of Shoreham and the keys (Fig. 12) handed to the Duke of Norfolk prior to the opening The growth of Brighton and Worthing in the early of the new bridge. The interest of the Duke in the decades of the nineteenth century and the associated new bridge was clearly shown by the placing of increase in the importance of Shoreham as a port figures of a lion and a horse (supporters of the servicing both towns, increased the interest in a Duke’s coat of arms) above the pylons. The bridge

36 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

was sold to the West Sussex County Council in 1903. road keeping well to the north of the grounds of It survived until 1923 when it was replaced. Tolls Knepp Castle, the seat of Sir Charles Merrik Burrell were abolished four years later94. who had commissioned John Nash to design the neo‐gothic house which was built in 1809. The Act Of the original Norfolk Bridge little survives except also allowed the stopping up of two existing lines of one of the original tollhouses on the Shoreham side, road at Shipley, Green Street Road and a line from stuccoed and classical in detail. Originally it had a Copp’s Barn to the Burrell Arms Inn, West square ground plan with the door facing the road Grinstead. Both would have prevented access to but it has subsequently been considerably altered Shipley without paying the road toll and the latter and extended. As originally conceived, there were would have kept a public road nearer to Knepp two identical lodges at the Shoreham end of the Castle. bridge and two similar in style at the Lancing end (Fig.13). Tolls were collected at the east end for As with many of the schemes of the 1820s it was far traffic heading for Worthing and at the Lancing end too ambitious and the Trustees lacked the funds to for traffic in the Brighton direction. This implement it. By May 1825 the road was sufficiently arrangement of pairs of bridge lodges was designed complete between Coolham Green and Shipley for for aesthetic reasons, and provided in one for the trustees to authorise the collection of tolls on this daytime living accommodation and in the other a stretch. At the same time it was declared that no bedroom for the toll keeper and family. The ones at tolls were to be taken on the road extending south the Lancing end survived until 1923 and may have from Coolham Green towards Thakeham “till a been demolished in connection with the replacement further order be made”. In July an order was issued bridge95. for a tollhouse and gate to be placed at the end of Water Lane in the parish of Thakeham “near the poorhouse”. This was followed by instructions in August 1826 that the road from Thakeham to Storrington “be immediately put in good order”. Money had however already run out and the trustees had to appeal to the parishes of Thakeham, Sullington and Storrington to keep the road in repair by raising funds in lieu of statute labour due to the trust. The Trustees promised that no gate would be placed on this road until it was brought up to turnpike standard. By December 1839 they had come to the conclusion that they would be unable to Fig.13 Lancing end of the Norfolk Suspension Bridge maintain the road south of Coolham Green and c.1920 ordered the removal of all road building and repair materials. All that was now left was the section of The Shipley Trust 1824 the present A272 road from Coneyhurst Common through Coolham and Shipley to Buck Barn on the The initial plan, for which permission was given by present A24, with two short spur roads at Shipley, an Act of Parliament of 182496, was for 17 miles of one extending south to the village and the other turnpike commencing at Marehill, Pulborough, north to meet the A24 a mile south of Southwater where it made a junction with the Stopham branch (part of the present B2224), the total length of the of the Petworth Trust97, through West Chiltington, trust being 6 miles and 3 furlongs. Thakeham and Shipley to Southwater where it connected with the Horsham and Steyning Trust of In December 1833 the Shipley gate was being let for 1764. A short branch from Shipley to the Horsham £102 pa and that at Coolham Green for £72 but these Trust at Buck Barn and a further road from Coolham sums were progressively to decline in the 1840s and through Coneyhurst Common to Billingshurst on 1850s and by September 1860 only £70 could be Stane Street were also included. Much of the route obtained for the Shipley gate and £50 for that at involved taking over of exsting parish roads, though Coolham98. At these levels there were insufficient the west to east line from Coolham Green through funds to both maintain the road and to pay interest Shipley to Buck Barn was considerably improved due on the sums originally raised. In 1840 the providing a more direct and virtually new line of condition of the road through Shipley and Coolham

37 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

was declared to be “fair” but that south of Coolham, effected to reduce the possibility of accidents at the still nominally part of the Trust, was stated to be “in crossroads. There are gates to the house at both bad condition” and proceedings were being taken ends of the original road alignment but both are against the parish surveyor of Thakeham99. The recent in date. opening of the Mid‐Sussex Railway through Milestones Billingshurst in October 1859 and the Horsham to Steyning line in September 1861 made a precarious None located or shown on ordinance maps position worse and in August 1866 the Trustees examined. resolved that “no step be taken to procure a The survey and research on which this article is continuance of the Trust’s powers when they expire based was a co‐operative effort by John Blackwell, on 1 November 1867”. The Trust was dissolved on Peter Holtham and the author. Their assistance is that date and by December the tollhouses had been gratefully acknowledged. My thanks is also sold and the funds in the hands of the Treasurer extended to Ron Martin who executed the map distributed to the parishes through which the road included. ran in proportion to the length of road in each parish. References Tollhouses 1. Arthur Young, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Sussex (1813) p418 Initially it was planned to place tollgates “at or near 2. Pigot’s Directory (1839) p277 Marehill” “near Coolham Green” and “near the 3. Ibid p256 workhouse in the parish of Shipley”. The first of 4. S.Lewis (pub.), A Topographical Dictionary of England these was never constructed as the first five miles of (4th edn 1840) Vol IV p78 road were never improved and subsequently 5. Pigot op cit p256 abandoned100. 6. VCH Sussex Vol VI Part II (1986) p149 Coolham Green TQ 120227 7. SWA 10 July 1820 The tollhouse was situated on the western side of the 8. BPP 1833(703) xv pp 240‐41 crossroads at Coolham and on the south side of the 9. BPP 1840(280) xxvii 15 road. It had gates across the present A272 and 10. WSRO Add Ms 11,692 across the road south to Thakeham, and was built on 11. 4 Geo III c 44 a garden plot of 9 perches. In 1847 the gate keeper 12. WSRO TDW/68 was named as John Collison101. After the winding 13. Horsham Museum Ms 426; William Albery, A up of the Trust the toll cottage and garden were sold Millennium of Facts in the History of Horsham and Sussex to Thomas Stepney of Shipley, farmer, for £56 9s 947‐1947 (Horsham 1947) pp616‐17. A painting by (£56.45)102. The house no longer survives and no W.S. Russell illustrated in Susan Haines, Horsham: A History (Chichester 2005) p84 illustrations have been traced. 14. Information by the late Geoffrey Smith. Shipley TQ 150229 15. WSRO TD/W142 It was situated at the point where the present B2214 16. WSRO TD/W118 crosses the A272 on the south side of the road to the 17. SWA 3 July 1820 west of the junction. The plot, including the garden, 18. 23‐24 Vict c70 amounted to 7 perches and in 1847 the house was 19. ESRO Add Ms 4392 occupied by John Brown as gate keeper103. It was 20. WSRO TD/W20 sold in November 1867 for £38 to Henry Summersell 21. SWA 10 July 1820 of Shipley, a builder104. It was still standing in 22. SCM Vol. X No. 10 October 1936 p712 October 1937 but since then has been demolished. 23. WSRO TD/W165 Currently, standing immediately to the south‐west 24. Mark Searle, Turnpikes and Toll Bars (nd c1930) Vol I of the junction is a substantial late Victorian or p373 Edwardian house, currently named “Shipley 25. WSRO Add Ms 11,692 Paygate”. The line of the B2214 at this point has 26. West Sussex Gazette, 7 Dec 1967; J. R. Armstrong and been diverted to the east and the original road John Lowe, Weald and Downland Open Air Museum surface is in the grounds of the house. This Booklet 4 (Chichester nd) pp 2‐3 diversion would appear to be prior to 1960 and was

38 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

27. The Milestone Society Newsletter 16 January 2009 pp17‐ 63. WSRO TD/E114 18 64. Margaret Holt & Wendy Gunn, Albourne Village Guide 28. 11 Geo III c99 (Albourne 2000) p15; WSRO TD/E109 29. 32 Geo III c32 65. SWA 30 Oct 1820 30. 11 Geo IV c104 66. WSRO QDP/345 31. WSRO Add Ms 9240 67. 3 Geo IV c13 32. WSRO Add Ms 9221‐4, 9241 68. WSRO Add Mss 30412‐19 33. 39‐40 Vict c39 69. 11 Geo IV c43 34. BPP 1833(703) xv 409, 1840(280) xxvii 15 70. BPP 1840 (280) xxvii 15 35. WSRO TD/E9, Add Ms. 9166, 9241 71. BPP 1833 (703) xv 409 36. WSRO TD/W154, Add Ms. 9166, 9241 72. BPP 1852 (18) xlviii County Reports No 3 – Sussex 37. WSRO TD/W163, Add Ms. 9166, 9241 73. 40 & 41 Vict c64 38. Information supplied by John Townsend who 74. ESRO TD/E78 interviewed a number of elderly residents. 75. ESRO How 34/21/143 39. WSRO TD/W157, Add Ms. 9166, 9241 76. ESRO QDP/379 40. SWA 9 March 1776 77. ESRO How 34/21/143 41. Marjorie Carreck & Alan Barwick, Henfield: A Sussex 78. VCH Sussex Vol VI Pt I (1980) p39 Village (Chichester 2002) p20 79. WSRO QDP/W55, QDP/W58 42. WSRO Add Ms 9203 80. 7 Geo IV c10 43. WSRO Add Ms 9242; John D. R. Townsend, “The 81. BPP 1833 (703) xv 409 Cowfold and Henfield Turnpike Trust 1771‐1877 Part 82. BPP 1852 (18) xlviii County Reports No 3 – Sussex 2”, Sussex Industrial History 38 (2008) p36 83. WSRO Add Ms 5941 44. Milestone Society Newsletter 8 Jan 2005 pp 22‐23 84. VCH op cit 45. G.D. Johnstone, “Inscriptions on Sussex Bridges”, SNQ Vol XVII No 7 May 1971 p223 85. WSRO TD/W21 46. 17 Geo III c74 86. Henfrey Smail, The Worthing Road and its Coaches (Worthing 1944) p19; Henfrey Smail, The Worthing Map 47. 38‐39 Geo III c7 Story (Worthing 1949) pp81‐83, 161; Henfrey Smail, 48. 4 & 5 Wm IV c10 Coaching Times & After (Worthing 1948) p139 49. E. J. Colgate, The Power and the Poverty: Life in a Sussex 87. G. D. Johnston, “Ferries in Sussex” SNQ XVI No 8 Village (Winchester 2008) p238 Nov. 1966 p271 50. ESRO QDP/E111 88. St James’s Chronicle 15 September 1770 51. SWA 27 March 1820, 19 February 1821 89. ESRO HOW 115/2; SWA 25 March 1782 52. BPP 1833 (703) xv 409 pp 239‐45, 1851 (18) xlviii pp 90. Edward Colquhoun, Around Old and New Shoreham 19,27,97 (Shoreham 1989) p1 53. Ibid, BPP 1840(280) xxvii 15; SWA 27 March 1820 91. ESRO HOW 115/3 54. WSRO TD/157 92. WSRO QDP/W62 55. T.W. Horsfield, The History and Antiquities of Lewes, Vol 93. 11 Geo IV c43 II (Lewes 1827) Appendix p xvii 94. H. Cheal, The Story of Shoreham (Hove 1921) p75; 56. WSRO TD/W167 Colquhoun op cit p7; VCH Sussex Vol VI Pt I(1980) p141 57. ESRO QDP/E111; Anon., Slight Sketch of a Picture of 95. Mark Searle, Turnpikes and Toll‐bars (1930) p373 Hurst (Hurstpierpoint 1826) p19 96. 5 Geo IV c26 58. SWA 8 May 1834; Colegate op cit pp 192, 204 97. See Brian Austen, “Turnpike Roads to Chichester, 59. WSRO TD/E29 Midhurst and Petworth” Sussex Industrial History 35 60. WSRO TD/E72 who date the map to 1838 which (2005) pp31‐34 conflicts with that of the PRO copy which is 1841. 98. WSRO Add Ms 2117 61. Mark Dudeney & Eileen Hallett, Albourne to Ditchling, 99. BPP 1840 (280) xxvii 15 pp 421‐47 (Burgess Hill 2000) p64 state that “a level crossing 100.WSRO ADD Ms 2117 continued at Hassocks station until the rebuilding of the station in 1881 when the road was diverted under 101.WSRO TD/W 108 the railway” but this is contradicted by a number of 102.WSRO Add Ms 5159/110 maps consulted including the Clayton tithe map and 103.WSRO TD/W 108 the 25” OS map surveyed 1872‐73. 104.WSRO Add Ms.5159/113‐14 62. ESRO QDP/E111; WSRO TD/E77

39 Sussex Industrial History No. 40 • 2010

PUBLICATIONS Previous numbers of Sussex Industrial History still available:‐ No. 2 (1971) Dolphin Motors of Shoreham; Lime Kilns in Central Sussex. No. 3 (1971/2) Lewes Population 1660‐1880; Kingston Malthouse. No. 5 (1972/3) East Sussex Milestones; West Brighton Estate; A Bridge for Littlehampton 1821‐2. No. 17 (1986/7) The Bognor Gas, Light & Coke Company Ltd.; Mineral Transport by the Telpher System (Glynde Aerial Railway); Bricks for the Martello Towers in Sussex; Jesse Pumphery, Millwright. No. 18 (1988) See The Windmills and Millers of Brighton (revised edition), listed at foot of page. No. 19 (1989) Leather Industry; Bignor Park Pump; Lowfield Heath Mill; B.M.R. Gearless Car; Wadhurst Forge. No. 20 (1990) William Cooper, Millwright; Foredown Hospital; Ford Aerodrome. No. 21 (1991) Quick’s Garage, Handcross; Punnett’s Town Wind Saw Mills; Hollingbury Industrial Estate. No. 22 (1992) Swiss Gardens, Shoreham; Brighton Brewers; Mill Bibliography; Beddingham Kiln. No. 23 (1993) Sussex Limeworks; Mills of Forest Row; Machine Tool Manufacture; Brook House Estate; Mill Authors. No. 24 (1994) Pullinger’s Mouse Trap Manufactory; Ice Houses; Forest Row Mills; Lewes Old Bank; Lumley Mill; Estate Industry at the Hyde; Slindon Bread Ovens. No. 25 (1995) Ricardo at Shoreham; Windmill Hill Mill; Portslade Brewery; Brighton General Hospital; Bognor Bus Station; Kidbrooke House Farm; Contents Sussex Industrial History. No. 26 (1996) Eastbourne Buses; Sussex Lidos; The Sea House Hotel; Bishopstone Tide Mill; Mountfield Gypsum; Uckfield Workhouse; Brighton Oven; Medieval Water Mills. No. 27 (1997) Sheffield Park Garden; Brighton Tunbridge Ware Industry; Railway Cutting Excavation; Eastbourne Mills; Tunnels of South Heighton; Sussex Lime Kilns. No. 29 (1999) Sussex Windmills and their Restoration. No. 30 (2000) Balcombe Tunnel; Ditchling Common Workshops; Midhurst Whites; Keymer Brick & Tile. No. 32 (2002) Henry Turner, Brickmaker; Crawley Water Company; Tamplins, Brewers; Ifield Steam Mill; Burgess Hill Pug Mill. No. 33 (2003) H.A. Waller & Sons; Electrical Generation at High Salvington; C.V.A./Kearney & Trecker; Cocking Lime Works; Nutley Windmill; Longleys at Christs Hospital. No. 34 (2004) West Sussex Brewers; Swanbourne Pumphouse; Hammond Family and Mills; Shoreham Cement Works; Pullinger’s Registered Designs; Balcombe Road Forge, Crawley. No. 35 (2005) Halsted & Sons of Chichester; Swanbourne Pump House, Arundel; Concrete Shipbuilding at Shoreham; Turnpike Roads to Chichester, Petworth and Midhurst No. 36 (2006) The British Syphon Company; Turnpike Roads to Arundel, Worthing and Littlehampton; Brewers of East Sussex; West Hill Cliff Railway, Hastings—Engine Room; The Lamp Posts of Ditchling. No. 37 (2007) Poynings Mills; Lavington Park Pump House; Tollhouse and Milestone Survey; A Colonel Stephens ‘Find’; CVA Eaton Road, Hove; Cowfold and Henfield Turnpike (Part 1). No. 38 (2008) Brighton Brewers; Rottingdean Mill; Turnpikes to Horsham; Cowfold and Henfield Turnpike (Part 2); CVA at Coombe Road Brighton. No. 39 (2009) Windmill Sweeps in Sussex and Kent; Alfriston Tower Mill; Earnley (Somerley) Windmill; Isfield Water Mills; Duncton Mill. Issues 2, 3 and 5 £1 each, issue 17 £1.50, issues 19, 21 and 22 £2.25 each, issues 23 and 24 £2.50 each, issues 25 and 26 £2.75 each, issues 27 and 28 £2.95 each, issues 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 £3.95 each, issues 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 £4.25 each. Post and packing extra, 80p for one copy plus 50p for each subsequent copy. For a list of the articles in volumes no longer available for sale see Sussex Industrial History 25 (1995). The Honorary Secretary is prepared to quote for photocopying articles in these issues. Also available:‐ M. Beswick, Brickmaking in Sussex (revised edn 2001) £12.95 post free F. Gregory, A Sussex Water Mill Sketchbook £6.95 post free H. T. Dawes, The Windmills and Millers of Brighton (2nd edn.) £4.95 (£5.50 incl. post & packing) Alan H. J. Green, The History of Chichester’s Canal (new edn.) £7.50 (£8.50 incl. post & packing) Orders with remittance to:‐ R.G. Martin, 42 Falmer Avenue, Saltdean, Brighton BN2 8FG Tel. 01273 271330

40         

      

       !      "#$